Striking the backboard

bob jenkins

Sharpshooternes wrote
I have also been pondering how it was possible to GT a FT and see from your description why it is penalized as a T.

4-22 "... touches the ball outside the cylinder during a FT attempt"

Adam

Camron Rust wrote
In fact, GT on a FT means the shooter will be getting a substitute shot since, short of having excessively long arms, it would normally be impossible to block a FT without entering the lane.

Why would he get a substitute shot when we're awarding the point?

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
...The only relevance to a FT is that GT on a FT is a T. If you think about it, there is no possible way to legally block a FT so GT is an deliberate infraction of the rules whereas BI is more about the distinction between a legal rebound and getting to the ball too early. In fact, GT on a FT means the shooter will be getting a substitute shot since, short of having excessively long arms, it would normally be impossible to block a FT without entering the lane.

Wouldn't a GT on a FT count as 1 point, therefore no need to shoot a substitute FT? We would then shoot 2 FTs for the technical foul?

Camron Rust

Adam wrote
Why would he get a substitute shot when we're awarding the point?

Duh...you are correct. We are awarding the point. 😮

Sharpshooternes

What is the HS mechanic for signaling a BI or GT?

Freddy

Sharpshooternes wrote
What is the HS mechanic for signaling a BI or GT?

As with other violations that have no specific symbol, simply point to the spot of the violation and vocalize the infraction.

Though yes, I am a plumber, I disapprove of the made-up "swirlie" signal with the finger. It's approved by toilet technicians, but not by NFHS.

Camron Rust

Freddy wrote
As with other violations that have no specific symbol, simply point to the spot of the violation and vocalize the infraction.

Though yes, I am a plumber, I disapprove of the made-up "swirlie" signal with the finger. It's approved by toilet technicians, but not by NFHS.

Wouldn't the signal be to either count the basket or wipe the basket depending on which team committed the infraction? Or are you thinking of that not as a signal for the infraction but, instead, a signal for the penalty.

Freddy

Camron Rust wrote
Wouldn't the signal be to either count the basket or wipe the basket depending on which team committed the infraction? Or are you thinking of that not as a signal for the infraction but, instead, a signal for the penalty.

Correct.

APG

Freddy wrote
As with other violations that have no specific symbol, simply point to the spot of the violation and vocalize the infraction.

Though yes, I am a plumber, I disapprove of the made-up "swirlie" signal with the finger. It's approved by toilet technicians, but not by NFHS.

Honestly don't have an issue with the signal personally. The NFHS is generally quite behind in signals that should be already in the book IMO. For instance, I imagine that a large percentage of officials were doing the kick ball signal while it was not an approved signal. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing was true of the tip ball mechanic.

PG_Ref

APG wrote
Honestly don't have an issue with the signal personally. The NFHS is generally quite behind in signals that should be already in the book IMO. For instance, I imagine that a large percentage of officials were doing the kick ball signal while it was not an approved signal. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing was true of the tip ball mechanic.

The tipped ball signal is already a new mechanic for this year.

bob jenkins

PG_Ref wrote
The tipped ball signal is already a new mechanic for this year.

I'm sure he knows that. He meant that it wouldn't surprise him if the signal had been used by many officials for many years before the signal was approved.

PG_Ref

bob jenkins wrote
I'm sure he knows that. He meant that it wouldn't surprise him if the signal had been used by many officials for many years before the signal was approved.

Gotcha

« Previous Page