[NFHS] Violation on free throw shooter?
 

My question is can a free throw shooter step on the line without fully crossing it?

The NFHS rulebook states this [9-1-3-e]: "The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket or the free-throw semicircle line."

According to that, the answer is no, the free throw shooter cannot touch any part of the line.

But others have said that the shooter can touch the line but not completely cross the line — as in cannot cross the edge of the line that is closest to the baseline, which I cannot find in the rulebook. So I don't know whether I'm missing something or not.

Any consideration to clarify this is greatly appreciated.

The shooter can not touch the FT line (until the ball contacts the backboard, rim, or goes in the basket).

In general, lines are part of the area they restrict...

* FT lines and lane lines are part of and in the FT lane
* The 3 point line is inside the arc
* OOB lines are OOB
* The division line is in the backcourt (for the team that is in control of the ball)

Maybe it is just a Monday and I am not thinking about it properly, but isn't the 3 point line the outside line of the arc?

This

Re read what he said the line is INSIDE the arc -- so the line is in the two-point area, so the outside edge of the line defines the boundary.

Yep! Is it possible to just do away with Mondays?

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 ;););)

What is going to hurt you more? The two/three players in the lane beating the crap out of each other going for the rebound or the shooter who may have stepped on the line? I am going to choose to watch the players in the marked lane spots more closely.

In a 2 or 3pt game on a last second shot when the shooter is close to the line you are going to be more concerned about rebounds? Everyone in the gym is looking at the location of the shooter, not the rebounders, except you.

Hey partner, did you have a 2 or a 3? BBG: Don't know, I had rebounders

I had a 1. We're talking about a free throw shooter here. (Or do you set up players in marked lane spots for 2 and 3 points shots as well???)

The conversation moved to 3 point line. Inside or outside arc. So I made the jump, perhaps BBG did not. My bad :)

Totally different play...apples and oranges.

Not really. On a FT, there is nothing else going on until the ball hits something. No reason to be watching the players on the lane so closely you can't see the position of the shooter's feet with regard to the line.

That's a good philosophy but...in NFHS you're generally not dealing with a personal foul situation on FTs until the potential for a FT violation is over since a player's feet aren't allowed to break the plane of the FT lane line until the ball hits the rim, etc. As the rule stands now there's not much reason to miss a violation in place of a foul.

The Center is responsible for the opposite side of the lane for violations correct? Nothing to look at? In an average year how many free violations do you have (not including end of game when they are trying to miss)...compared to how many violations/fouls by players in marked lane spaces?

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.

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.

Now Cut That Out ...
 

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

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.

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

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!

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

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."

What did he do that was against the rules?

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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."

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.

The real problem is actually when the assignors don't back the officials who make calls which are fully supported by the rules and worse yet when they actively advocate not following the rules during games and do such themselves when officiating.

That is what makes it extremely difficult for those officials who strive to enforce the rules as written.

+1

It's all well and good to go out and start making these calls, and I agree that enforcement puts a quick end to silly crap like this, but there are some calls that some assigners just don't want to worry about. This is one in some areas.

As is the twisted heel over the lane line in a gymnastic stance during the free throw.

Here are my questions:
Are you counting ten seconds just as quickly on free throws as you do in the backcourt?

Are you calling a three second violation every time three seconds elapses with a player not getting both feet on the floor completely outside of the lane?

I had a great opportunity for a multiple foul last night. A1 going in for a layup, fouled by B1 as he was going up. Before he came down, B2 comes flying in and knocks him down.

Both players deserved the foul. I just picked one, though, because I don't want to be the only guy in my association to ever call a multiple foul.

So you allowed the second player a free whack on the shooter. Too bad.
You ignored a rule that was put in to protect players from exactly this because you were afraid that your peers would chide you?

Thirty-Two Years, Never Seen One Called ...
 

Maybe the only guy in the world? You'll be famous. Or infamous?

Perhaps he wants to keep getting the games he's getting? I'm going to take wild guess, but I'd guess he (and just about anyone) won't get far anywhere if you're that guy making weird calls like multiple fouls.

I remember asking many college officials in a previous association that I was in...every single one said, unequivocally, that a multiple foul is a test question and to never make that call. Pick one and move on.That may not mesh well for those that just say call the game exactly by the book, but it's the reality of the situation.

Sure.

Sadly, I believe that is the cowardly route. Particularly when player safety issue is involved the official has a duty to step up.
In the situation just posed by Adam, I have a problem allowing a player a free whack that knocks an opponent to the floor. Sounds to me like the second player caused excessive contact on an airborne shooter.
That's just not something which I'm comfortable passing on.

Remember...I said the supervisor/assignor steps in and gives the association its marching orders. If, in the situation presented in the OP, they tell me don't call it, I won't. I have my principles but chief among them is keep working.

That being said...I'd never say there aren't gray areas acknowledged with some rules but I can't see any of my assignors telling us to ignore a kid stepping on the FT line after the ball is at his/her disposal. No call there has an immediate effect on whether a team scores. Additionally, it falls into the "Stevie Wonder in the cheap seats" category: Everyone sees it. I would hope an assignor/supervisor wouldn't even tell an official "just have the kid back up." I'm not saying that if I'm aware of it before the game I won't talk to the player but that's as far as I'll go. He/she can't figure it out once the game starts? That's life.

Think about it: I give A1 the ball, he/she purposely steps on the FT line, I call a violation...and I did something wrong? What is someone going to tell me? 'Yeah, he/she violated, but..." But what?


I'll give you that. I consider myself lucky. My assignors all tell us if the rules back us they'll support us and I haven't run into any problems in that regard. If there's something they don't want us to do, they let us know.

Enforcement of the coaching box seems to be near the top of this list too. Why do my colleagues think that it is okay for a guy to be at the division line "just coaching?" Drives me nuts to see.

1. You're reading way too much into what I wrote. If there had been excessive contact, I would have gone with an intentional foul on the second player and ignored the first contact. As it was, both fouls would have been called alone, but neither would have likely knocked the player to the floor without the other.

2. Your use of "cowardly" is over the top, frankly. I'm following the desire of those who hire me to do a job. I don't work for "the game." I don't work for the NFHS. I work for a local association that does all of the assigning here. If I don't do the job they way they want, I won't get the next job. It's that simple. If and when I get to be an assigner, I'll consider calling it in a situation like I had yesterday.

3. I don't think the rule is there for a situation like mine, but I think you're picturing it differently than it happened. I'll take ownership of that, since you're going off of my description. I think the rule is there for the time when the contact is truly excessive. But what I think is really irrelevant. Making this call as regularly as it happens (two players fouling a shooter) would land me permanently in YMCA ball.

4. How many multiple fouls did you call last season?

I can tell you here, this is not the case. If he has a foot out, that's one thing. If he's at the division line, I'm going to address it every time.

I'm with you. I'd just as soon call this as not, but it's not an ethical issue for me. I disagree that it affects the score. There's no advantage here. None. Should it be called anyway? Sure, I'll go along with that; just like an obvious travel in the backcourt. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.

There are much bigger fish to fry, such as that $#$@$# heel hanging over the line for the defender.

If the 2nd foul was intentional, then the pick one camp would say go with the upgraded foul. If that's cowardly in your eyes, then so be it.

1. Perhaps, but I still don't agree with the basic concept which you are espousing--to deliberately ignore one of the fouls and only penalize one of them when when you clearly observe both and know that by rule they both should be penalized.
2. Let me get this straight. You are purposely not doing what you know is proper because you don't wish to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be as you believe that they won't assign you games and that will cost you money. Hmmmm... I think that our departed friend JR would say that you sold out or are compromising your integrity. I wrote that it was cowardly. I'll stick by that appraisal. How is this any different from officials not whacking the home coach in an area where the school ADs directly hire the officials because they fear not getting asked to come back? Sorry, but if I go down, I'll do so doing it the way that I believe to be right. If someone doesn't hire me because I'm not afraid to make the unpopular calls, then so be it, but it won't be because any coach, assignor, or other official intimidates me into calling or not calling something that it believe in.
3. Again perhaps my visualization is different, but you wrote that a player was fouled on the way up (I'm assuming that we have a whistle at this point) and then B2 comes flying in and knocks the shooter to the floor on the way down. You even added that both players deserved a foul. So why not charge them both? That second one certainly sounds excessive to me.
Now I'm picturing a drive to the hoop here by a guard or a wing player, not a post player powering up through a double or triple team like Dwight Howard and taking contact from multiple defenders. If the former, then this situation is exactly why the multiple foul rule is in the book. It prevents that second defender from coming in late and punishing the guy taking it to the rim. Those are the kind of actions which everyone in the gym can see , and unless dealt with strongly and appropriately, will cause retaliation, further rough play, and even possibly a fight. Calling multiple fouls on post play situations will get you a steady diet of rec ball, but failing to punish a cheap shot will also prevent you from reaching where you wish. I don't normally disagree with much that you post and feel that I am being harsh with you about this, but I really feel that letting what you described go unpenalized is a serious error. What if the shooter had broken his wrist as a result of being knocked down by the second fouler? How are you going to defend a no call when asked why the crew didn't penalize B2 for anything when he caused a severe injury? If that kid had been seriously injured, could you permit B2 to continue to participate with a clear conscience?

4. None, but it wasn't because I passed on any situations that warranted it.

I guess that I've worked my share of State and Regional games and really don't care if an assignor doesn't agree with what I decide to call. I know the rules extremely well and that leads to great confidence in what I call on the court. So I already know that I have rules backing. In my opinion, any assignor who doesn't support an official in that situation is worth the heartache that I'm sure to encounter. I recall rocky road posting about a college assignor, perhaps D1, who didn't back a pregame tech that he called. That's garbage and I certainly don't wish to officiate fearful that my assignor isn't going to have my back. I'll pass on the money, if it comes to that. Fortunately, I've found that coaches like knowing that I won't hesitate to penalize them or their players because they know that I will do the same with the guys wearing the other jerseys and sitting on the other bench, plus their players are going to feel protected.

I didn't think you'd answer any differently than you ultimately did but I didn't anticipate how you had misread it. :)

I was wondering where you were going with that response.

Now I can sleep:D.

You Can Look It Up ...
 

This is only legal in a girls game. Illegal in a boys game. It has something to do with the Y chromosome, but I'm not a geneticist, nor do I play one on television, so I really can't explain it.

So you're the only official in America who didn't have a single play in which you could have called a multiple foul by rule?

I don't believe that for one second.

I would change "should" to "could" here.

No, I don't avoid doing what I know is proper. Frankly, I think it's proper to enforce the rules as my "bosses" see fit, so long as it doesn't break the law.

Well, I think we have different assessments of the word integrity.

Interesting question. My first thought is that we're operating under the assumption that the assigner is impartial. That can't be said for the AD.


You are picturing it differently. Picture a transition play, kids are scrambling (7th grade boys). B1 goes up with the shooter, both running, and knocks him off trajectory but not enough to knock him down. He knocks him into a moving B2 who had chosen an angle that would have avoided contact initially.

And no, I didn't have a whistle before B2's contact, my whistles aren't generally that fast anymore.

I'd like to see you answer BNR's question on this one.

Exactly. It makes the 2 situations completely different.

What else can I say, the situation just didn't arise this past year. That's not difficult to believe as unless a try for goal or an airborne shooter is involved, the first foul would make the ball dead on almost all plays.
On the other hand I had three flagrant fouls this season and I hadn't called one of those in about seven years. So this stuff seems random to me.

Those aren't the only 2 ways to incur a multiple foul. 2 opponents illegally contacting an opponent at the same time occurs quite frequently over the course of a season. And in those cases you pick one and move on.

To say you haven't done the bolded portion would lead me to question your forthrightness on this subject.

And you can do that AND follow the rules. Since ALL fouls are judgment calls with advantage/disadvantage concepts applied, does the one foul impart any more disadvantage than what was already imparted by the other. If not, was the other contact really a foul at all? Seems to me that, by rule, a second contact is not even likely to be a foul unless it is excessive. In that case, you don't really have a multiple foul, you have more.

I love it when someone thorws words like "cowardly" or "just in it for the money" around when someone doesn't call things the way they want it called.:cool:

Bottom line - no one, let me repeat that, NO ONE calls the rule book exactly the way it it written on every single page. So to call someone cowardly because they don't call the multiple foul rule the way I think they should, opens me up to being called cowardly when I don't call 3 seconds on the team that is down by 30 points with 5 seconds to go in the game. It's counter-productive.

Anyone who says "I will call that no matter what the powers that be say I should do" is already on the downward side of their career.

So, in my situation:

B1's contact is what actually affects the shot attempt.
B2's contact is what knocks an already off balance A1 to the floor.

Neither was excessive.

There's no advantage to B2's contact, but it knocked an airborne shooter to the floor.

Was this:
1. No foul (by rule) on B2 as the shot was already gone and there was no advantage?
2. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets ignored because we're already calling the foul on B1?
3. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets called in lieu of the foul on B1 because it knocked A1 to the floor?
4. A multiple foul?

I think we'll do a poll.

Jurassic Referee Is Watching From Above, Or From Somewhere ...
 

Great. Now you guys have gone and done it. This started out as a simple thread on free throws, and now it's come to this. Why couldn't you guys have just called each other some names, and then one of you just pick up your ball and go home? That's the way we settled arguments when we were kids. But, no. Now we have to have a poll. Thank God Jurassic Referee isn't around to see this. We all remember how much he liked polls. I'm positive that he would have told us exactly where we could put our poll. And with that in mind, thank God we're not talking about flag poles. Ouch, just thinking about it.