Foul on a Free Throw

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by stosh

(she never leaves the floor)

Related question:

A1 jumps to shoot a free throw and is fouled by B1 before returning to the floor. A1's free throw is a)unsuccessful or b) successful. Ruling?

I am going to look it up, but I thought the discussion would be useful concerning live ball, try, free throw rules, etc.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Related question:

A1 jumps to shoot a free throw and is fouled by B1 before returning to the floor. A1's free throw is a)unsuccessful or b) successful. Ruling?

I am going to look it up, but I thought the discussion would be useful concerning live ball, try, free throw rules, etc.

While logic might suggest that the penalty would be 1 shot in either case, there is no defined penaly for being fouled in the act of shooting a FT aside from being in the bonus. The defined penalties only reference being fouled in a 2 point try or a 3 point try.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Related question:

A1 jumps to shoot a free throw and is fouled by B1 before returning to the floor. A1's free throw is a)unsuccessful or b) successful. Ruling?

I am going to look it up, but I thought the discussion would be useful concerning live ball, try, free throw rules, etc.

Nasty, nasty question!

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While logic might suggest that the penalty would be 1 shot in either case, there is no defined penaly for being fouled in the act of shooting a FT aside from being in the bonus. The defined penalties only reference being fouled in a 2 point try or a 3 point try.

A correct answer. The NFHS does not have rules coverage for a foul in this situation. Per the definitions of airborne shooter, common foul, personal foul, this foul cannot be a common foul. It is committed against and airborne shooter and therefore must be a personal foul. However, as Camron notes, there is no penalty listed in the book. I love learning stuff like this! I'll note here that there is a similar problem for the bonus as nowhere in the NFHS rules does it state to award the first FT of the 1-and-1 for common fouls 7, 8, and 9 of a half.

My solution: Call such a foul an intentional personal foul for taking a cheap shot at the FT shooter while he is in a defenseless position and assess the penalty for that. 2 FTs and possession of the ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Per the definitions of airborne shooter, common foul, personal foul, this foul cannot be a common foul.

Why can't this be a common foul? A common foul excludes a player trying for a FIELD GOAL, but not one trying a FT. A try for field goal is a 2- or 3-point attempt (see 4-41-2)

[hoopguy]

I am pretty sure that this should be called a technical foul under NCAA-W. There used to be video examples for NCAA-W that was free$ last year(I posted a thread complaining about this) and I am sure one of the videos used this exact example and I believe the ruling was this should be a technical foul. I can't back this up since I can no longer view those videos. I AM positive that this foul is used in their videos but not 100% sure about the violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why can't this be a common foul? A common foul excludes a player trying for a FIELD GOAL, but not one trying a FT. A try for field goal is a 2- or 3-point attempt (see 4-41-2)

You are correct, bob. I overlooked the fact that 4-19-2 says, "for a field goal." I was going off memory instead of looking up the rule in the book, and thought that it just said, "a try for goal."

However, the player is certainly an airborne shooter as that rule 4-1-1 does state "on a try for a goal." It does not specify "field" goal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are correct, bob. I overlooked the fact that 4-19-2 says, "for a field goal." I was going off memory instead of looking up the rule in the book, and thought that it just said, "a try for goal."

However, the player is certainly an airborne shooter as that rule 4-1-1 does state "on a try for a goal." It does not specify "field" goal.

Agree that s/he is an airborne shooter. Not sure why it matters. Since it wasn't a 2- or 3-point attempt, it's not a "shooting foul" (an undefined term -- but I mean the peanlty is not Pentaly 2 or 5 in teh Penatlies Summary),

So, it's "just" a common foul -- ball OOB or bonus FTs.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agree that s/he is an airborne shooter. Not sure why it matters. Since it wasn't a 2- or 3-point attempt, it's not a "shooting foul" (an undefined term -- but I mean the peanlty is not Pentaly 2 or 5 in teh Penatlies Summary),

So, it's "just" a common foul -- ball OOB or bonus FTs.

I can live with the ruling. It seems reasonable to me. I would prefer the NFHS to add a part c to number 5 in the penalty section for Rule 10 or a Case Book ruling for this situation, but even if this has to fall under 2-3 what you write makes good sense.

I guess we're back to "always listen to bob."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My solution: Call such a foul an intentional personal foul for taking a cheap shot at the FT shooter while he is in a defenseless position and assess the penalty for that. 2 FTs and possession of the ball.

For boxing out a shooter?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For boxing out a shooter?

Nope for FOULING a FREE THROW shooter. That is supposed to be "an unhindered try for goal." A foul is illegal contact which certainly hinders a player's movement.
Boxing out is legal action which should never be penalized.