FIBA vs. NBA/NCAA/NFHS

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I don't understand that line of thinking. As is right now, we do the exact same thing for the defense in that if they violate, we only care if the free throw is missed.

Right, because to penalize a defensive violation when the free throw is good is to unfairly punish the offense. Such a penalty makes no sense.

It could be worse, though. Looking at the soccer equivalent, the penalty kick, if the offense violates, and the goal is good, we re-shoot. Anyone in favor of going that route in basketball? (ducking)

If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the offensive player and the opponents’ basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.

Thanks. I remember this.

I saw this applied in a USA women's game vs. Croatia over the weekend. I saw I foul that I probably would have let go -- clear breakaway from the division line, contact, though neither heavy nor advantageous -- because the contact didn't neutralize anything. While we have the intentional foul in our NFHS rule book, it doesn't specifically cover break-aways (though that could be left to local interpretation).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Right, because to penalize a defensive violation when the free throw is good is to unfairly punish the offense. Such a penalty makes no sense.

It could be worse, though. Looking at the soccer equivalent, the penalty kick, if the offense violates, and the goal is good, we re-shoot. Anyone in favor of going that route in basketball? (ducking)


Thanks. I remember this.

I saw this applied in a USA women's game vs. Croatia over the weekend. I saw I foul that I probably would have let go -- clear breakaway from the division line, contact, though neither heavy nor advantageous -- because the contact didn't neutralize anything. While we have the intentional foul in our NFHS rule book, it doesn't specifically cover break-aways (though that could be left to local interpretation).

If it wasn't advantageous, why not just let the dribbler continue for an uncontested layup? If it was advantageous, then the NFHS intentional foul rule would apply.

And while I wouldn't be against allowing the offense to reshoot, I see no reason to lessen the penalty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And while I wouldn't be against allowing the offense to reshoot, I see no reason to lessen the penalty.

I think the FT violation penalties are inequitable. I think the soccer has it at least partially right. If the shot ends in a preferred manner for the violating team (make for the offense, miss for the defense), reshoot. If the shot ends in an undesirable manner for the violating team, let it stand....which we already do for defensive violations. For offensive violations on miss, we'd probably need to award the ball to the defense since the offense probably got a rebounding advantage by violating.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think the FT violation penalties are inequitable. I think the soccer has it at least partially right. If the shot ends in a preferred manner for the violating team (make for the offense, miss for the defense), reshoot. If the shot ends in an undesirable manner for the violating team, let it stand....which we already do for defensive violations. For offensive violations on miss, we'd probably need to award the ball to the defense since the offense probably got a rebounding advantage by violating.

Yeah, I could see that. Then, perhaps, a double violation would make more sense than what now is essentially ignoring the defensive side and punishing only the offense when more FTs are to follow.

Do it your way on single violations. On double violations, cancel the whole shot and move on to what's next.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, I could see that. Then, perhaps, a double violation would make more sense than what now is essentially ignoring the defensive side and punishing only the offense when more FTs are to follow.

Do it your way on single violations. On double violations, cancel the whole shot and move on to what's next.

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

The only problem I can see, which is minor, would be that this would increase the number of violations we get when non-shooters come into the lane late. Right now, they know they can't do it at all (some still do occasionally, but hardly ever at the JV level and above). But if we make it so it doesn't matter on some shots, they'll forget occasionally.

Not a major deal, and I can't think of a reason not to go along with that suggestion.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

If the ball is to remain dead after the free throw is completed, this is how they handle it in the NBA.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If the ball is to remain dead after the free throw is completed, this is how they handle it in the NBA.

Well, in that case, it can't possibly be a good idea. I don't know what came over me.