"Clarification" ???

[JRutledge]

If they did not put it in the rule, it is not apart of the rule. If your state Billy wants to have an additional restriction, that is their right. But you should not look towards old rules or interpretations when the rule was entirely changed anyway. And other levels do not seem to have this distinction either.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If your state Billy wants to have an additional restriction, that is their right.

Which is what concerns me.

It doesn't bother me when a state "tinkers" with a minor rule, or mechanic, like Connecticut stating that headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves, have to be the same color, or when Texas dictates that the referee sound his whistle before entering the vicinity of the court (to discourage dunking). These fall under the "When in Rome..." flexibility guidelines oft used in the officiating world.

But this is adding an entire section to a rule that nobody else in the country seems to be doing. I don't know why, but it just makes me uncomfortable being a maverick. If the NFHS wanted free throw line restrictions in the new rule, then they would have placed them in the rule, as God , and Dr. Naismith, intended.

[Rich1]

I do not see anything in the rules specifically profibiting a defender from breaking the plane of the free throw line after the release in order to block out (only restrictions on the shooter).

I don't think a rule is really needed because if the shooter holds his position then the defender won't be able to go far without displacing the shooter which I'll call a foul. Since most shooters set up within inches of the line I don't see how a defender could break the plane by much without displacing the shooter.

It will be a situational thing for me based on displacement or advantage/disadvantage and I'm sure anyone who gets called for such a foul will not be breaking the plane in the future.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I don't think a rule is really needed because if the shooter holds his position then the defender won't be able to go far without displacing the shooter which I'll call a foul.

We were also told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant. And, by Connecticut standards, the shooter would get another free throw if his original free throw missed because of the free throw line "violation" by the defender.

Have any of you IAABO guys heard anything about this, or has IAABO Connecticut decided to secede from the Union?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We were also told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

During a live ball?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We were also told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

Originally Posted by Adam

During a live ball?

It doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what we were told. I'll follow up on this as soon as our interpreter's Power Point is posted on our board's web page.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'll follow up on this as soon as our interpreter's Power Point is posted on our board's web page.

Here's the text of the Power Point slide:

If the defender along the free throw lane line breaks the plane of the free throw line, a violation has occurred. Use delayed violation signal. Hold whistle until free throw is completed. If free throw is made, ignore violation; if free throw is missed, award a replacement free throw. (9-1-3-B)

Here's the explanation given by our local interpreter:

The ruling was a NFHS response received by IAABO.

Anybody hear anything new regarding this ruling?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here's the text of the Power Point slide:

If the defender along the free throw lane line breaks the plane of the free throw line, a violation has occurred. Use delayed violation signal. Hold whistle until free throw is completed. If free throw is made, ignore violation; if free throw is missed, award a replacement free throw. (9-1-3-B)

Here's the explanation given by our local interpreter:

The ruling was a NFHS response received by IAABO.

Anybody hear anything new regarding this ruling?

We heard (by inference) just the opposite. The rule interpreter gave an example of breaking the FT line plane and boxing out the shooter and we needed to watch for a foul. Never said anything about it being a violation.

[JRutledge]

OK Billy, how many schools are you going to play against that is going to be from another state?

I can speak for me, if I get one that is usually about as high as I get to see a team that is out of state. So if that is the position of your state, then so be it.

But as stated, I do not see how this would not be a foul anyway. And considering this is not something you see as a trend at other levels (meaning players are not trying this as a strategy) I do not think you have much to worry about either way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK Billy, how many schools are you going to play against that is going to be from another state?

Fewer than I can count on one hand missing a few fingers (like my high school wood shop teacher).

It's just that I don't like being an outlier.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Fewer than I can count on one hand missing a few fingers (like my high school wood shop teacher).

It's just that I don't like being an outlier.

Well that sounds like a personal problem.

Maybe you need to read the Serenity Prayer?

Peace