[NFHS] Violation on free throw shooter?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

A total of four players, all within a very short angle of view. There isn't any reason to be watching any of them so closely you can't see the other three. I'm not saying whether you should call the toe on the line, but there really is no reason to say you can't see it.

By the book the C (in 3) and the T (in 2) is responsible for just three players on FTs - the shooter and the top two lane spaces on the opposite side. Even more reason to be able to see things.

[upprdeck]

we have a player whose routine is to accept the ball and for some reason. he kicks one foot to multiple times on on the line like hs is trying to dry the floor, much like a batter does on his back foot in the dirt in baseball.. he often puts his foot 2-3 inches over the line and it has never been called in the two years i have watched him play.. of course i have seen players with their feet 4-5 inches over the line shoot shots with no call as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by upprdeck

we have a player whose routine is to accept the ball and for some reason. he kicks one foot to multiple times on on the line like hs is trying to dry the floor, much like a batter does on his back foot in the dirt in baseball.. he often puts his foot 2-3 inches over the line and it has never been called in the two years i have watched him play.. of course i have seen players with their feet 4-5 inches over the line shoot shots with no call as well.

I don't call this, unless he doesn't pull it back before he shoots. By rule it's a violation, but I'm not going to be the only one calling it.

On the last one, I'm not sure what you're describing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't call this unless he doesn't pull it back before he shoots.

First time, I'm probably telling him to knock it off. After that, it's a violation.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't call this, unless he doesn't pull it back before he shoots. By rule it's a violation, but I'm not going to be the only one calling it.

On the last one, I'm not sure what you're describing.

Would you grant the same leniency to defender in the top lane space who decides to go talk to his coach well after the shooter has the ball but well before he actually takes the shot? Didn't really disconcert but violated none the less.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigBaldGuy

Use your commonsense on this play...that would be my opinion.

If he/she just stepped on the line...didn't rush in for the rebound...I may have not seen it

Do you do the same thing when a player just steps on the sideline, but doesn't go around the defender?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by upprdeck

we have a player whose routine is to accept the ball and for some reason. he kicks one foot to multiple times on on the line like hs is trying to dry the floor, much like a batter does on his back foot in the dirt in baseball.. he often puts his foot 2-3 inches over the line and it has never been called in the two years i have watched him play.. of course i have seen players with their feet 4-5 inches over the line shoot shots with no call as well.

That's just disappointing from an officiating standpoint.
Want to bet that this player knocks off this nonsense after the first time that he gets penalized for it? If people would just officiate the game according to the rules a great deal of these silly situations would disappear.

As for your observation of players shooting 4-5 inches over the line without a violation being called, I can only say WOW!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by upprdeck

we have a player whose routine is to accept the ball and for some reason. he kicks one foot to multiple times on on the line like hs is trying to dry the floor, much like a batter does on his back foot in the dirt in baseball.. he often puts his foot 2-3 inches over the line and it has never been called in the two years i have watched him play.. of course i have seen players with their feet 4-5 inches over the line shoot shots with no call as well.

Who is "we" and what level of play is this?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's just disappointing from an officiating standpoint.
Want to bet that this player knocks off this nonsense after the first time that he gets penalized for it? If people would just officiate the game according to the rules a great deal of these silly situations would disappear.

Amen. If someone, somewhere had called the violation once right when it happened, it stops. Cold. The way the situation is described this isn't an accident. He knows what he's doing and he'll keep doing it until someone says stop.

As my BV assignor would say, "Sometimes y'all cause your own headaches out there."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Would you grant the same leniency to defender in the top lane space who decides to go talk to his coach well after the shooter has the ball but well before he actually takes the shot? Didn't really disconcert but violated none the less.

What did he do that was against the rules?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

What did he do that was against the rules?

Are you really asking that question? Or is there some hidden point you're making?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you really asking that question? Or is there some hidden point you're making?

I completely missed it, because I read passed one little word.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Would you grant the same leniency to defender in the top lane space who decides to go talk to his coach well after the shooter has the ball but well before he actually takes the shot? Didn't really disconcert but violated none the less.

To answer the question, no, I wouldn't.

The reason:
I would not be the only official in my association calling it; the same cannot be said for the quick toe drag by the shooter.

[Nevadaref]

Obviously, his point is that he is reading the post such that the player talked with his coach while remaining in his lane space, even though the other poster used the word "go."

[JetMetFan]

So here's the problem: If we all think "I'm not going to be the only one calling it" then "it" never gets called...and we end up discussing "it" in online forums.

I've had assignors/supervisors tell me they've heard similar feelings from officials and while they understand that also doesn't absolve us from taking care of things. Their response has been make the call - assuming the call in question is supported by the rules - then let them (the supervisor/assignor) know if you took any flak. That's where they step in and give the association its marching orders. We can't get the whole "one rule, one interpretation" thing dealt with if we stay quiet.

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by jetmetfan

so here's the problem: If we all think "i'm not going to be the only one calling it" then "it" never gets called...and we end up discussing "it" in online forums.

I've had assignors/supervisors tell me they've heard similar feelings from officials and while they understand that also doesn't absolve us from taking care of things. Their response has been make the call - assuming the call in question is supported by the rules - then let them (the supervisor/assignor) know if you took any flak. That's where they step in and give the association its marching orders. We can't get the whole "one rule, one interpretation" thing dealt with if we stay quiet.

+1.