![]() |
Need some help on a free throw situation.
I know this has been covered before but I couldn't find this situation in my book...HS summer game.
White is shooting first FT of a 1 & 1 and black moves during shot for violation. White makes free throw but commits violation in the act of shooting (crosses FT line). The violations did not occur exactly at the same time but both officials blew their whistles after the made basket. The lead caught black's violations and the trail caught the shooter's violation. I'm thinking AP but some officals claim you would shoot the 1 & 1 again? AP sounds right, but I'm still pretty new. FYI - The officials actually awarded a point for the FT and then shot the second free throw...claiming that the initial act of black (two players switched positions) threw-off the shooter? That doesn't seem right...Thanks. |
Penalize both violations. Go to the arrow.
Penalties 9-1-4-b |
Quote:
No dice. No disconcertion. Double violation. AP. |
Cancel the FT and go to AP.
Other observations: * Trail should whistle immediately when shooter violates, and not just after a successful FT. * Lead shouldn't have blown their whistle at all. Delayed violation mechanic, then drop it after the successful FT. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If the official does deem that something done by an opponent qualifies as disconcertion, then any violation by the shooter will only be considered in deciding if a legal goal is scored, but otherwise not penalized. So in the situation at hand, the FT cannot count as it was not legally scored due to the shooter crossing the FT line, but if the official deemed the defender to have disconcerted, then a substitute throw would be awarded. Essentially, administering the 1 & 1 over again would be the right way to handle it in that specific case. The officials on the game cannot possibly have been correct, no matter what they called, since they scored a FT that was illegally made. :( |
Quote:
As I just posted above, the shooter's violation must also be penalized if the goal is made. You can't count an illegally scored FT. So BadNews is correct that disconcertion doesn't eliminate the requirement that the thrower not cross the line. |
Quote:
But if, in a game, I see a defender violate then deliberately do something to draw the shooter into the lane, the only violation I'm going to call is the one on the defender...it is not the spirit or intent of the rule to allow the defender to attempt to get the shooter to violate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Can I Get Change From A Buck ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
Push/Pull the shooter....or fake doing so causing the shooter to step out of the way and into the lane. (added) Why would someone do this? Probably the same reason Billy Gillespie instructed one of his players to goaltend a FT....in an attempt to get an advantage. Situation: 10 seconds remaining...A1 on the line for two after being fouled while shooting....and not in the bonus. B4 accidentally steps in early. In order to ensure that A1 doesn't get 3 chances for 2 shots, B4 lets A1 release then pulls A1 into the lane. What do we have? By Nevs. interp, we call both violations....on B4 and A1 (since A1 was in the lane before the ball hit), wipe the bucket, probably a foul on B4, and award a substitute throw, . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW my ruling is a lane violation on B4 as well as an INTENTIONAL PERSONAL FOUL. However, in order to count the FT still must be attempted from behind the line. Therefore, in this particular instance the FT won't count if the shooter is pulled or pushed over the line, but a substitute throw will be awarded. If the shooter were pulled six feet into the lane before tossing the ball up and into the basket, there is no way that I could defend scoring it. EDITED: I changed my mind on this ruling! :eek: |
Quote:
I had to look it up the first time. :eek: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please tell me if you would count the basket in these two situations. 1. A1 is driving to the basket and is fouled by B1 who pushes him while he is in the act of shooting. The push causes A1 to travel before he releases his try for goal. The attempt is successful. 2. Same play only A1 is near the sideline and the push causes A1 to step OOB prior to the release of the try. The attempt is successful. I believe that these plays more clearly illustrate the point at hand. |
Quote:
In both your plays, A1 violates BEFORE the shot is released...violations that potentially aided A1 in making the shot and ones that may have happened anyway. In my situation, the shot is away, the FT shooter is not at risk of stepping across the line (and stepping on the FT line is only relevant regarding a possible rebound, not the success of the shot) when a player from B caused A to step on the line. FWIW, I'm disallowing the shot in your two plays....again...apples and oranges. Recall this following situation and how it is nearly unanimously called: A1 driving and going up for the shot obviously gets hit across the arm (or gets pushed) by B1. A1 subsequently crashes into B4 (who has LGP). Call: Foul on B1....subsequent contact ignored. We simply consider B1's foul to have caused the subdquent contact and do not penalize A1 at all. The rules are a framework for typical situations but merely guideline for non-typical situations. When something not anticipated by the rules happens, we've got to uses the intents of the rules to do the right thing. |
Quote:
FALSE DOUBLE FOUL 4.19.9 SITUATION A: A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A's basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-5) PS So if something that happens AFTER the release of the ball can't possibly impact the shot, why do we cancel a goal for a PC foul on an airborne shooter? Because the rule says so. Is that more to your apples and oranges liking? |
Quote:
Quote:
The "right" call is not always be found in the book. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation...." (NFHS Basketball Rulebook, preface) The rules are written in a concise form to give the official a framework from which to call the game, covering the basic situations and some combined/complicated situations. It doesn't foresee every possible combination or sequence of events. It is up to the official to make the right decision given their understanding of the intent and purpose of a rules, not just the ability to read/recite the rule. To blindly apply a rule based solely on the letter of what is written in the specific rule as you insist, without regard to intent/purpose, is in direct contraction with the overall guiding principle laid out in the preface to the rules. Sometimes, the more common situations make it to interpretations or casebook plays, but not always. One example is ignoring a throwin plane violation with 5 seconds on the clock....no direct support in the rules but has been established as the right thing to do....just this one was eventualy published in a case play. There are other less common situations that will occur but will never make it to the casebook but, at the same time, should be adjudicated with intelligence, not blind application of a rule not meant for the situation. |
Actually, I think that you are missing the point.
The principle at work in your example of ignoring a throw-in plane violation with only 5 seconds left is that a team should not be rewarded for doing something illegal. That would be the case if the official stopped the clock to call the violation. Now please tell what benefit does the violating team get in any play proposed in this thread. I see no reward for the illegal action. Thus it should be penalized. Even in your first example with a defender violating the FT lane space and then pushing or pulling the shooter over the line prior to the attempt contacting the ring, how in the heck would he know whether the try is going to be successful at that point? :confused: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quite simply, Camron, you are insisting on counting a goal that was illegally made. That's just plain wrong. There is nothing else to say about it. What you are advocating is the same as counting a basket when the ball was on the ring and a player intentionally slapped the backboard to cause it to fall off. You may feel that the "right" or fair thing to do is to credit the goal, but the rules of the game don't allow it. The team gets other compensation, in this case that comes in the form of two FTs from a technical foul. Sorry, partner, but there are clear rules about how points are scored and the officials must enforce them. Doing otherwise is unacceptable no matter how "right" or in the spirit of the game you think it is. |
Quote:
I would hope that you would come on and say that the other thread was completely in jest because we can't always tell when people are being serious on here (even with icons). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
If B1 pulls A1 (or any Ax player) into the lane, I'm simply calling the foul. The spirit and intent of the rules is clear that they are designed to prevent one team from benefiting from this play. By disallowing the freethrow, B has benefited from an underhanded tactic.
Shot counts, intentional foul on B1, two extra shots for A1, pull everyone off the lane as A will get their throwin under the basket. |
In the original scenario defender violates and then A1 violates by entering the lane after releasing the shot. That's a double violation, go to AP arrow.
I fail to see how disconcertion would cause a shooter to enter too early. Camron has added all kinds of variables to justify his initial answer. |
Camron:
I hope that my defense of your position is not the kiss of death to your position. Therefore: NFHS R9-S1, Penalty 4c states: "If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate and a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded." This penalty would imply that Camron is correct in scoring the free throw in the original play if in the judgement of the official there was disconcertion. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Here, I'll use it in a sentence. "Sometimes, xxxxx can be a petulant narcissist." Hey, maybe M&M can set up a poll to see who xxxxx is. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I didn't add "variables" to justify my answer...my original answer was correct as it was and I stand by it. I said that while it was uncommon, I could imagine scenarios that would cause me to ignore a violation by the shooter. I was asked for examples of such situations and provided them. I made a general statement to cover all posibilities rather than a specific statement that had holes in it. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34pm. |