case 9.1.1 part B
 

Hey guys. I have been reading the case book and came across this particular case and don't really understand what makes this a violation. Last year if this were to happen, it is my understanding that if a player were to lose control of the ball after it bounces off himself, we would blow it dead and readminister the FT. However according to this case, it is a violation. Why? What makes this a violation. The rules reference that the NFHS uses are the 10 sec rule for the ball to touch the rim and the FTer breaking the plane of the FT line. But neither of these actions are stated in the case. Can anybody help me make sense of this case and it's ruling?

answer
 

I believe that those are the rules stated because if a player loses the ball before shooting one of those could be the result. PLayer loses the ball it would take longer than ten seconds, and if they got to get the ball they cross the plane. I agree that they should just put in the rule that once the foul shooter has control of the ball that it is on them to not lose control of the ball.
Bottom line is it is now a violation if they lose control of the ball.

The case book cites to R 9:1-3 (a) and (e), neither of which, to me, specifically relates to what happened in the case play. On the other hand, it seems easy enough to remember that once the thrower has the ball at his disposal, if he loses it and it rolls away- it's a violation.

The rule seems to leave room for our discretion. To me, if there is any doubt at all that the player mishandles my pass for the free throw, I'm giving it back to him. But to hold it, dribble it 2/3 times and then kick it off his foot, he is out of luck....

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

Could the player, his coach, or a teammate call time-out while the ball is rolling away?

he could not call a TO because he is not in player control or the ball is not at his disposal

Old News ...
 

From Scrapper1 back on October 1:

9.1.1 has been changed this year. They added a situation where the free thrower loses the ball while doing his habitual dribbling before attempting the try. This year they're telling us this is a violation. If he muffs the pass from the official, reset and administer it again. But once he gets it, if he's just clumsy, it's a violation.

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

Could Someone Please Just Toss That Ball Back To Me ???
 

Good call. They have team control, but, as you stated, no player control (dribbling, or holding), or ball at disposal, nor is there a dead ball, the ball became live when it was put at the free thrower's disposal.

Next question, and I'll probably answer it myself in a few seconds; what prevents A2 from picking it up if it rolls to him and passing it back to A1?

Okay, checked the relevant rules, and there's nothing I could find which prevents a teammate (or opponent) from passing the loose ball back to the shooter as long as he shoots within 10 seconds of first receiving the ball.

Common Sense??? :p

Just kidding, that spilled over from another thread. :D

Wouldn't it be something if A2 commits a lane violation while retrieving the ball and giving it back to A1....and then A1 makes the shot, which is then subsequently wiped away by A2's violation? :eek:

It would be something...a late whistle. ;)

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

My two (2) cents.
 

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.

MTD,
When did the FT end?

I'll Give It A Shot ???
 

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.

I'll try:
After the 10 second count? :D

My two (2) cents, Part II.
 

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.)

Gee Whiz Bob, I wonder who are the scoundrels that are driving that thread on another organization's website. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. :D

MTD, Sr.

It strikes me that no particular rule is being violated (yet) when the fed wants us to call the violation. I suppose this is similar to the throwin play, following a made basket, where the throwin team never gets OOB to complete the throwin. A violation is called as soon as it is clear they do not intend to make a proper throwin.

During the dribble which was to preceed the try? :confused:

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.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 

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?

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.

Rule 4: Disposal ???
 

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.

NevadaRef:

Rather that say it was my opinion, I should have said that I believe the Rules Committee wants the free throw attempt to be considered over when A1 lost control of the ball. I really don't think there are rules to support such an interpretation. It is my humble position that since an attempt has not been made the officials should wait for one (1) of three (3) things to happen: (1) The ball rolls out-of-bounds; ball to Team B. (2) A ten (10) second free throw violation occurs. Or (3) A volation or foul by either team occurs.

MTD, Sr.

Why #1?

Why not?

MTD, Sr.

Good point.