case 9.1.1 part B

[palmettoref]

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?

[PIAA REF]

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.

[zeedonk]

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....

[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?

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

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.

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

[palmettoref]

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

[BillyMac]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

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

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.

[Adam]

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.