A play for 2-3?
 

The free throw discussion brought this hypothetical to mind.

A1 at the line, standing way to the right side of the lane due to some quirky habit. He takes a few dribbles before his shot, and B3, standing in the top spot along the lane next to the shooter, knocks the ball out of A1's reach.

Discuss.

Seems unsporting to me. I have a technical.

technical and goal tending!

Goaltending?? Seriously? Explain, please.

4.22 Goal tending occurs when.....an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

4.20.2
A free throw starts when the ball is at the disposal of the free thrower

What penalty are you going to impose for the violations?

Ooh...very interesting...

I like it - if it's the first of 2, count it, clear the lane, shoot the second, then shoot the 2 T FT's, then give A the ball back at the division line for a throw-in.

To paraphrase a former poster here - That should stop the 'lil sh!ts from doing THAT again!

I like the attempt, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant. ;)

BillyMac will like that the OP could be an example of a T under 10-3-5

I have no problem with omitting the goal tending, as long as you give him both free throw attempts prior to the administration of the technical.

If you take away his attempt you have to count the point as goal tending.

Any objections?

Just to be a contrarian, how about disconcertion (a stretch, but using 2-3 here works) the first time with a threat of a T? Give the ball back to the shooter, give the delayed violation signal, and let him have two cracks at the free throw.

If you call the goal tending, you automatically have a T anyway.

Player technical
a player shall not....
10.9 Goaltend during a free throw

you can debate whether or not it is a FT attempt and goaltending on the OP, however even if it isn't goal tending the act still falls under the unsporting act category and you'd have a technical.


Not quite the picture I had painted in the OP but still interesting.

YouTube - Goaltending A Free Throw

Obviously the free throw has begun, so that's not the question. I would say the free throw "attempt" has not begun, but that's an undefined word. My thought is the intent of the goal tending rule here is to prevent the defense from actually blocking the free throw shot itself.

I wouldn't really argue with someone who called it goal tending, however. I can see going any one of three ways with this.

1. GT and the requisite TF.
2. TF for unsportsmanlike behavior.
3. Disconcertion with a warning.

I'd probably lean towards #2, but could see going either way depending on the situation.

Years ago in Indiana, there was a team that, if they stepped in the lane way early, would continue in the lane and actually guard the free-thrower. The thinking was, the opponent was going to be awarded another throw on a miss anyway, so let's make sure he misses. Got away with only a substitute FT penalty a few times.

As I understand it, after one or two well-placed unsportsmanlike T's later in the season, it stopped.

I'd have had my players (if I was a coach) shoot into the defender's hand.

In that case, the FT would end when it was clearly unsuccessful...heading towards a player and not the rim....and it would be a FT violation on the shooter for having the FT end before it hit the rim.

Interesting.

I think I am going with a technical and no goaltending. Clear the lane and let A1 shoot two free throws then shoot the technical foul. Throw-in for Team A at the division line.

Agreed...I'm just not sure the GT violation fits here. Don't like the disconcertion idea either. Pretty sure it's a plain old unsportsmanlike T - similiar to reaching across and hitting the ball on a throw-in.

Bugs me that Snaqs came up with something that made me have to stop and think!:p

Sorry, I was assuming the defender's hand was extended between the shooter's hand and the rim. Even if the shooter shot it underhanded, it the freethrow wouldn't end until the defender touched it, creating a goal tending situation.

You know what they say about a stopped clock? Well, that doesn't apply here, so never mind.

roflmao!!

If you call goal tending on this, I think you can pretty much count on giving more than just one T. You may end up with a couple of ejections as well.

Enforcing goal tending is not at all what the rules want here. Can you imagine trying to explain this to your assigner or during the next pool meeting? You know you’re going to have to because the coach is going to be on phone with them.

I honestly think the situation falls so far outside the norm, that you could get away with this. The goal tending on this really only costs 1 point, maybe, since at the very least you're going to give the player another shot.

I'd be more than happy to talk to the coach about it, and if he's going to go ballistic about this play, he deserves a seat in the locker room. He had better be chewing B3 a new hole if he's raising his voice.

I say to my assigner or the coach "Rule 10.22 says that goaltending can occur on the free throw and rule 10.20.2 says the free throw starts when it is at the disposal of the free throw shooter"

I don't think it would be that difficult. It's one point. The kid took away his right to attempt the free throw by slapping the ball away prior to him having an "fair" opportunity to score the basket.

Again like I said earlier I have no problem just letting the kid re-shoot and then the tech, but why would the definition of goaltending (4.22) state that it can occur on a free throw?

At what point to you call it a Goaltending on the free throw? Once the shot is on it's downward flight outside the cylinder? Once it hits the cylinder it would be Basket Interference and no un-sporting act occurs. Agreed?

The goaltending definition (4-22) states:
Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, or an opponent of the free thrower touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

Swatting the ball away while the shooter is bouncing the ball a couple of times before the shot is not during the attempt. I am hard pressed to see a goaltend call on this.

I’m not arguing this point. The rules clearly state that goaltending can occur during a free-throw.

Agreed. And I believe that this would be an usporting T.

It says free throw attempt. I believe the intent of the word “attempt” in this situation means the actual act of attempting the free throw shot. That’s how I see it anyway.

During the actual attempt of the shot. This of course can mean during the upward flight of the ball as well as downward.

Let me rephrase, since I'm not in the GT camp on this one. I agree with you that "during the attempt" is not while dribbling. I wouldn't call GT.

That said, I wouldn't even consider trying to talk my partner out of it if he or she made that call. In that case, I'd be more than happy to explain to the coach the reasoning behind it, with full support for my partner.

Clark Kent, you may be new here, but you show some serious potential to be a world class evil genius!

My understanding of the spirit and intent of the goaltending rule is that is intended to be just like the regular goaltending rule, but also to penalize swatting away a free throw on it's way up too.

I'm going with the T on this for unsporting conduct. The act is certainly unsporting, and the penalty is in line with that for reaching through the boundary and touching the ball during a throw-in.

I wouldn't choke on my own vomit if my partner called the kid for disconcerting, but that would not be the call I'd make.

Unsporting Technical Foul Is My Call ...
 

I like my red words better. No goaltending.

My tent is pitched right next to yours in this camp, but I felt the need to yank your chain about the nuances of the rules anyway.

There cannot be any dribbling during a FT according to Rules Fundamental #5. You should have written "while bouncing the ball." ;)

Ewwwwwww!:eek:

Hmmm. How do I respond to this? You're right, and I knew it. But you knew that I knew it. If only I could find a way to respond in two words or less. Oh yeah, I think I got it:

Shut up.