Free throw administration

[mdray]

Jburt -

re-read the list of correctable errors to see if your situation is covered; then you'll have your answer

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mdray

Jburt -

re-read the list of correctable errors to see if your situation is covered; then you'll have your answer

LOL that was my next suggestion.

[Fritz]

Since we are on the topic of free throw administration, had this happen Mon night. 8th grade boys game. A1 at the line to shoot the first of two shots (foul on B1 while in the act of shooting, unsuccessful). After A1 releases the shot, B2 clearly steps into the lane before the shot reaches the vicinity of the basket. I say "vicinity" because the shot doesn't draw iron.

I'm lead and give the lane violation sign, then trail (2-man crew of course) blows the whistle on the no-rim. We consulted and my partner thought that because B1 violated first, we should re-shoot the shot. I thought that since it was a double violation, we wipe off that shot and just shoot the 2nd one.

Who is right? By the way, since my partner was the senior official, we went with his call and sold the coaches that way with no arguments.

[Back In The Saddle]

We discussed this one at length in the past year, I believe. Shooting the free throws "out of order" is not a correctable error. All merited free throws were shot. Presumably they were all shot by the proper players, and at the correct basket. Those would be correctable errors. Simply fouling up and shooting them in the wrong order is not a CE. And as long as the offended team receives their throw-in after it's all done, then all salient points of the penalty have been fulfilled.

Play on. Don't foul it up next time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We discussed this one at length in the past year, I believe. Shooting the free throws "out of order" is not a correctable error. All merited free throws were shot. Presumably they were all shot by the proper players, and at the correct basket. Those would be correctable errors. Simply fouling up and shooting them in the wrong order is not a CE. And as long as the offended team receives their throw-in after it's all done, then all salient points of the penalty have been fulfilled.

Play on. Don't foul it up next time.

Yep, straight from the Case Book:
MISTAKE IN ADMINISTRATION SEQUENCE
8.7 SITUATION B: B1 fouls A1 just as the first quarter ends and then A1 retaliates and intentionally contacts B1. A1’s foul is a technical foul as it occurred during a dead ball. Team A is in the bonus. The officials by mistake administer the penalty for the technical foul before the free throw(s) by A1. RULING: The penalties should have been administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. However, since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error situation. The second quarter will begin with an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-19-5c)

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, straight from the Case Book:
MISTAKE IN ADMINISTRATION SEQUENCE
8.7 SITUATION B: B1 fouls A1 just as the first quarter ends and then A1 retaliates and intentionally contacts B1. A1’s foul is a technical foul as it occurred during a dead ball. Team A is in the bonus. The officials by mistake administer the penalty for the technical foul before the free throw(s) by A1. RULING: The penalties should have been administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. However, since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error situation. The second quarter will begin with an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-19-5c)

A1 who in fouled is worst free throw shooter on the team. A2 (designated FT guy) is a sharpshooter. In the above scenario A1 shoots 2 FTs (barely drawing iron). Coach has A2 ready to go nail the two technical FTs.

But officials realize they have already awarded the technical free throws (mistakenly by the officials), and now A1 is supposed to shoot 2 for the original foul. Coach A is now distraught at that prospect.

Do the officials count the result of the two as being performed in the correct order and now allow A2 to shoot the technical FTs?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by referee99

A1 who in fouled is worst free throw shooter on the team. A2 (designated FT guy) is a sharpshooter. In the above scenario A1 shoots 2 FTs (barely drawing iron). Coach has A2 ready to go nail the two technical FTs.

But officials realize they have already awarded the technical free throws, and now A1 is supposed to shoot 2 for the original foul. Coach A is now distraught at that prospect.

Do the officials count the result of the two as being performed in the correct order and now allow A2 to shoot the technical FTs?

This is where you keep the whole thing to yourself and decide with your partners that you had the correct order all along

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We discussed this one at length in the past year, I believe. Shooting the free throws "out of order" is not a correctable error. All merited free throws were shot. Presumably they were all shot by the proper players, and at the correct basket.

This is absolutely correct for NFHS. Wasn't there an NCAA interp about this a couple seasons ago? I seem to remember that it was different in NCAA.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is absolutely correct for NFHS. Wasn't there an NCAA interp about this a couple seasons ago? I seem to remember that it was different in NCAA.

I don't have those memos. Do you still have them in your attic? Next to your MTD Sr. shrine?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Since we are on the topic of free throw administration, had this happen Mon night. 8th grade boys game. A1 at the line to shoot the first of two shots (foul on B1 while in the act of shooting, unsuccessful). After A1 releases the shot, B2 clearly steps into the lane before the shot reaches the vicinity of the basket. I say "vicinity" because the shot doesn't draw iron.

I'm lead and give the lane violation sign, then trail (2-man crew of course) blows the whistle on the no-rim. We consulted and my partner thought that because B1 violated first, we should re-shoot the shot. I thought that since it was a double violation, we wipe off that shot and just shoot the 2nd one.

Who is right? By the way, since my partner was the senior official, we went with his call and sold the coaches that way with no arguments.

You're right. It's actually a simultaneous violation though, not double. You just shoot the second shot. If this happens on the second free throw, you do an AP throw-in on the end line.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

You're right. It's actually a simultaneous violation though, not double. You just shoot the second shot. If this happens on the second free throw, you do an AP throw-in on the end line.

Unless there was disconcertion (doesn't sound like it from the OP, though).

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Unless there was disconcertion (doesn't sound like it from the OP, though).

You're right. I didn't mention that.

I did think of this though: If Team B violates and Team A shoots a no-rimmer on the first of two shots, is it a simultaneous violation? B does violate, but is it even a violation on A since it's the first of two free throws? Wouldn't you call a violation on B and re-shoot the first free throw?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I did think of this though: If Team B violates and Team A shoots a no-rimmer on the first of two shots, is it a simultaneous violation? B does violate, but is it even a violation on A since it's the first of two free throws? Wouldn't you call a violation on B and re-shoot the first free throw?

You're not the first one to have that thought. This kind of stuff already appears in the NFHS Case Book. I strongly suggest that you get ahold of a copy and read it cover-to-cover.


9.1.3 SITUATION H:

While A1 is attempting a final free throw, (a) B1 enters the lane too soon followed by A2, both of whom are in marked lane spaces; or (b) B1, in a marked lane space enters the lane too soon, then shooter A1 steps on the free-throw line while releasing the throw. RULING: In (a), the violation by A2 is ignored and, if the try is successful, the goal shall count and the violation by B1, shall be ignored. If the try is unsuccessful, the ball shall become dead when the free throw ends and a substitute free throw shall be attempted by A1 under the same conditions as those for the original free throw. In (b), a double violation is called and the ball is put in play using the alternating-possession procedure. COMMENT: Anytime the defense violates first, followed by a violation by the freethrow shooter, the officials should consider the possibility of disconcertion. (9-1 Penalty)

9.1.3 SITUATION G:

As A1 starts the free-throwing motion, B1 hurriedly raises his/her arms. In the judgment of the official, the action of B1 disconcerts A1 and causes the attempt to miss the basket ring. RULING: As soon as the ball misses the ring, it becomes dead. Since free thrower A1 violated following disconcertion, a substitute free throw is awarded. (9-1-3a Penalty 4c)