case 9.1.1 part B

[palmettoref]

in this case, he did not kick it ---- it accidentally bounced off his leg.

just because he loses control is not a violation ----- it is only a violation if he crosses the plane of the FT line or violates the 10 sec rule.

i agree that this case needs more information to make the proper ruling

[Adam]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

in this case, he did not kick it ---- it accidentally bounced off his leg.

Same thing here. Whether his foot was moving at contact is not relevant.

[zeedonk]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

in this case, he did not kick it ---- it accidentally bounced off his leg

Absolutely correct- poor choice of words by me...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I read the casebook play (9.1.1b) and the referenced rules (R9-S1-A3a & e). I understand what the Rules Committee is trying to achieve but R9-S1-A3a & e is not the correct rule to apply. R9-S1-A3e DOES NOT apply to CP9.1.1b because A1 did not enter the free throw lane. R9-S1-A3a DOES apply because his free throw attempt did not touch the ring before free throw ended.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
When did the FT end?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD,
When did the FT end?

When the "try" touches the floor ???

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

When the "try" touches the floor ???

A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD,
When did the FT end?

I'll try:
After the 10 second count?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Based upon the wording of the rule and the casebook play, it is my opinion that the free throw try ended when the ball hit the floor. The casebook play does not mention a ten (10) second violation.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Based upon the wording of the rule and the casebook play, it is my opinion that the free throw try ended when the ball hit the floor. The casebook play does not mention a ten (10) second violation.

MTD, Sr.

I agree that this is what they are trying to accomplish. I also think it's the "right" ruling. I'm just not sure it's (fully / clearly) supported by the current rules.

My guess is that the rules committee means that the "throw" in 9-1-3A is the ONLY legal way for A1 to lose player control -- any other way is a violation. The rule doesn't say that, though.

Suppose A1 passed the ball to A2 (on the lane) who passed it back. A1 then attempts the FT (all within 10 seconds; no one leaves a space). Has A1 (or anyone on A) violated?

(There's a similar argument going on in one of the baseball threads -- if the rules says a player "shall" do something, does that mean that the player can "ONLY" do that.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Based upon the wording of the rule and the casebook play, it is my opinion that the free throw try ended when the ball hit the floor. The casebook play does not mention a ten (10) second violation.

MTD, Sr.

During the dribble which was to preceed the try?

[Back In The Saddle]

Does this seem a little "out there" to anybody else? A kid gets fouled, maybe even hammered on a shot, he goes to the line, maybe he's a little rattled, perhaps he's a little bit injured, he fumbles the ball during the only situation in the entire game that's designed to be an uncontested, take your time kinda deal, and suddenly now it's "Sorry, Charlie."?

And there are so many questions left completely unanswered. What if the kid can reach the ball without violating? What if the ball bounces away but into the semi circle instead of the lane? What if the player places the ball on the floor in the lane in front of him as part of his habitual ritual? I play with a guy who does that, sets it on the floor, stretches out his bad back, picks it up and takes his throw. What about another player picking it up and passing back to him?

Based on the cited rules, it seems the violation is based on the seeming inevitability of violating either the lane or the 10 count. Neither of which is a given. So does this only come into play when the fumble is such that one of those would HAVE to be violated?

This just seems like a bad change to me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And there are so many questions left completely unanswered.

You're right. The case book seems clear. It's a violation. The question is, according to the rules, why? When the coach, athletic director, local sportswriter, or local cable television announcer asks why the player was denied a free throw, will we only be able to cite a casebook situation, rather than a rule?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Based on the cited rules, it seems the violation is based on the seeming inevitability of violating either the lane or the 10 count. Neither of which is a given. So does this only come into play when the fumble is such that one of those would HAVE to be violated?

Agreed, and it doesn't allow for the possibility of requesting a TO to keep the shot. A possibility specifically allowed for in the resumption of play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed, and it doesn't allow for the possibility of requesting a TO to keep the shot. A possibility specifically allowed for in the resumption of play.

That's not really a concern here because the ball isn't at the disposal of the free thrower as in the case of RPP.