The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Need some help on a free throw situation. (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/45974-need-some-help-free-throw-situation.html)

NURef Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:26pm

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.

just another ref Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:32pm

Penalize both violations. Go to the arrow.

Penalties 9-1-4-b

BktBallRef Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NURef
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.

Not sure how a defender violating could cause a shooter to cross the FT line.

No dice. No disconcertion. Double violation. AP.

pizanno Wed Jul 02, 2008 01:07pm

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.

Camron Rust Wed Jul 02, 2008 01:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Not sure how a defender violating could cause a shooter to cross the FT line.

No dice. No disconcertion. Double violation. AP.

While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

Raymond Wed Jul 02, 2008 02:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

Still, that doesn't wipe out the requirement of the FT shooter not stepping over the line before the ball hits the rim. Now, if A3 enters the lane too early, then yes, you could judge B4's action as the cause.

Camron Rust Wed Jul 02, 2008 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Still, that doesn't wipe out the requirement of the FT shooter not stepping over the line before the ball hits the rim. Now, if A3 enters the lane too early, then yes, you could judge B4's action as the cause.

Sure it can. If you feel that a defender's actions led to the shooter commiting a violation, only the defender's violation is penalized.

Nevadaref Wed Jul 02, 2008 04:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

I'm with the rest of you guys here, and would call a double violation then use the AP arrow, but Camron has a legitimate point.

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. :(

Nevadaref Wed Jul 02, 2008 04:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Sure it can. If you feel that a defender's actions led to the shooter commiting a violation, only the defender's violation is penalized.

Camron,
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.

Camron Rust Wed Jul 02, 2008 06:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Camron,
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.

In general, that would be true....disconcertion, shot, shooter rushes in, made/missed, both violations called.

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.

Dan_ref Wed Jul 02, 2008 06:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
In general, that would be true....disconcertion, shot, shooter rushes in, made/missed, both violations called.

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.

OK, I realize we're in that difficult period where the only hope to work a game is AAU, camps, summer rec leagues and we're a good 3+ full months before scrimmages... but what could a defender possibly do that would draw the shooter into stepping over the line before he releases the ball (NFHS)?

Nevadaref Wed Jul 02, 2008 06:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
OK, I realize we're in that difficult period where the only hope to work a game is AAU, camps, summer rec leagues and we're a good 3+ full months before scrimmages... but what could a defender possibly do that would draw the shooter into stepping over the line before he releases the ball (NFHS)?

For once, I must say that you have asked an excellent question, and you even did so without being sanctimonius. :)

Dan_ref Wed Jul 02, 2008 07:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
For once, I must say that you have asked an excellent question, and you even did so without being sanctimonius. :)

Wish I could return the compliment.

BillyMac Wed Jul 02, 2008 07:17pm

Can I Get Change From A Buck ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Sanctimonius.

Do we really need these $10.00 words?

Camron Rust Wed Jul 02, 2008 07:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
OK, I realize we're in that difficult period where the only hope to work a game is AAU, camps, summer rec leagues and we're a good 3+ full months before scrimmages... but what could a defender possibly do that would draw the shooter into stepping over the line before he releases the ball (NFHS)?

I was actually thinking about after the release but before it hits the rim but before the release works too....

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, .

Raymond Wed Jul 02, 2008 07:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
...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, .

Boy, the original premise of this thread sure has gone off to La-La Land.

Nevadaref Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
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, .

And Dan says that I come up with some 3rd World plays! ;)

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:

Nevadaref Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac
Do we really need these $10.00 words?

Talk to Snaqwells. He has tossed out "conflating" twice in the past four months. ;)

I had to look it up the first time. :eek:

Camron Rust Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Boy, the original premise of this thread sure has gone off to La-La Land.

Hey, its important to be clear that some rulings are not ALWAYS right. Even if it is not this situation, this is the type of scenario where some officials get into trouble and make poor decisions....by adjudicating the game based on paraphrased rules and treating things that usually apply as something that always applies or by ignoring the spirit of the rule and calling it strictly by the book.

Nevadaref Thu Jul 03, 2008 03:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Hey, its important to be clear that some rulings are not ALWAYS right. Even if it is not this situation, this is the type of scenario where some officials get into trouble and make poor decisions....by adjudicating the game based on paraphrased rules and treating things that usually apply as something that always applies or by ignoring the spirit of the rule and calling it strictly by the book.

Camron,
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.

Camron Rust Thu Jul 03, 2008 04:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Camron,
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.

Apples and oranges.

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.

Nevadaref Thu Jul 03, 2008 06:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Apples and oranges.

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.

Your framework/guideline concept is nice, but when we have a specific case play that tells us exactly how to handle a situation I believe that we should follow that instead of imposing our personal feelings upon the game.

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?

Camron Rust Thu Jul 03, 2008 06:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Your framework/guideline concept is nice, but when we have a specific case play that tells us exactly how to handle a situation I believe that we should follow that instead of imposing our personal feelings upon the game.

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)

You show me where it is typically done that way in practice and then I'll consider it. You personal desire to call it by the book in opposition to widely accepted practice (even knowingly against what the book specifically says) suggest that perhaps the letter of the book doesn't alway reveal the intent of the rule....as the first page of the rule book establishes is necessary to apply the rules correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

You fail to understand that the PC foul after the shot is a direct result of the path chosen to take the shot itself. Now what if the shooter lands and, in following their shot, shoves someone in the back...we still count the shot if it goes. That is much closer.

The "right" call is not always be found in the book.

Nevadaref Thu Jul 03, 2008 07:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The "right" call is not always be found in the book.

Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

Camron Rust Thu Jul 03, 2008 07:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

Once again, you miss the point.

"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.

Nevadaref Thu Jul 03, 2008 08:24pm

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:

Camron Rust Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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:

They don't need to...if the violation is to be called as you suggest, they kill the made shot if it is made forcing the shooter to reshoot....if missed, they've lost nothing.

Nevadaref Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
They don't need to...if the violation is to be called as you suggest, they kill the made shot if it is made forcing the shooter to reshoot....if missed, they've lost nothing.

Except for the Intentional Personal Foul which was just called against them if the offender made contact on the play or if you are claiming that the defensive violation is done without contact, yet it still somehow causes the shooter to cross the line AFTER the release of the ball, but BEFORE it contacts the ring or backboard or enters the goal (which is a scenario that I can't fathom actually taking place), then besides the substitute throw for disconcertion an official may consider an unsporting technical foul as well per an NFHS ruling. However, the FT attempt still cannot count if made.

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.

sseltser Fri Jul 04, 2008 07:13am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

I know the other post was off topic slightly, but your reaction there and here are completely in opposition to each other. Unless you are being sarcastic in an effort to anger people from buffalo, then I find it very difficult to give your subjective posts credit. Taking such a definitive stance like this one is rediculous when you posted something that was completely the opposite.

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).

Camron Rust Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Except for the Intentional Personal Foul which was just called against them if the offender made contact on the play
.

Who said anything about it being intentional....could have been inadvertant....and possible incidental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.

Choosing to ignore a potential infraction is far different than penalizing something that is legal or calling something that never occured. Do you call a 3 second violation EVERY time when a player is in the lane for 3 seconds?

Adam Fri Jul 04, 2008 01:24pm

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.

Raymond Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:21pm

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Jul 04, 2008 05:05pm

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.

Adam Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Talk to Snaqwells. He has tossed out "conflating" twice in the past four months. ;)

I had to look it up the first time. :eek:

Hey, watch it, or I'll start throwing out words like "petulant" or "narcissist."
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. :)

Lcubed48 Sat Jul 05, 2008 07:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Hey, watch it, or I'll start throwing out words like "petulant" or "narcissist."
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. :)

AND, sometimes yyyyy is nefarious prevaricator. :mad:

Camron Rust Sat Jul 05, 2008 01:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
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.

To rule correctly, you have to know why A1 entered the lane...you can assume he did so on his own but that is merely an assumption.

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.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1