case 9.1.1 part B

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Maybe? When the ball is bounced by the lead official to the free thrower, and the free thrower catches the ball, it is at his, or her, disposal. For the next ten seconds, the thrower's team may call a time out. If, after two seconds, the thrower, who has control of the ball, bounces it off his, or her, foot, into the lane, has the thrower "lost" disposal? Common sense seems to indicate yes, disposal is lost. However:

The NFHS has definitions of when a ball becomes live, and when a ball becomes dead. It also has definitions of when a try begins, and when a try ends. To the point, the NFHS has definitions of when the ball is at the disposal of a player, but, as far as I can determine, doesn't have a clear definition of when disposal ends. Maybe loss of player control, that is, a player holding, or dribbling a ball, ends disposal. Again, common sense seems to indicate yes, disposal is lost when player control is lost. But we all know that a few NFHS rules, and interpretations, don't seem to follow common sense.

The casebook play makes this situation, and interpretation, very clear, but I can't seem to wrap my hands around a rule that would direct an official to call a violation.