If A1 is an airborne shooter, then A1 is in the act of shooting. Don't you think the term "unhindered" applies throughout the whole duration of his act of shooting?

It very well could, and given the NFHS's illogical ruling on contact with the thrower on a throw in, I wouldn't be surprised either way. But unless they say it specifically, I'm going to rule it the same as I would on a normal shot with the clock running.

I think the logic in calling contact on a free thrower who is an airborne shooter as intentional is very sound, but I don't think the rules require it. If you have a foul by B on the free thrower and you choose not to call it intentional, it must be a common foul regardless of whether or not the free thrower is an airborne shooter. The only reason the free thrower's status as an airborne shooter may matter is that you could still have a common foul by B after the ball is dead due to a violation by A.

There probably aren't any other scenarios where a non-PC common foul could be called after the ball is dead...

I disagree. His status as an airborne shooter makes all the difference here.

I think we would agree the rules makers use "unhindered" to mean the opponent can do nothing that would interfere with the free throw starting with (1) distracting/disconcerting the shooter prior to release (which has specific rule coverage), (2) physically interfering (contact) with the shooter during the act of shooting (not specifically covered by rule) and (3) blocking the free throw (covered by rule not only with a goaltending violation but a technical as well). Why the rule book doesn't address interference by contact is probably because no one ever thought it would happen; but IMO: if A1 chooses to shoot a free throw near the back of the circle (feet on the floor or jump shot style) and B1 from behind the top of the arc reaches forward and contacts A1 during the act of shooting, Shirley I am calling an intentional foul.

I got no problem with that at all. (Same as if, as I think Cameron was suggesting, he is taking it from the edge and a defender on the lane reaches out and whaps him.) But if the defender on the land is simply over ansious in blocking out the shooter (who hypothetically though extremely unlikely) is still an airborne shooter when the defender gets there, I don't see any basis for calling that inentional. (I'm open to pesrsuasion, but I haven't seen anyone suggest a rule basis for condluding it is intentional.)

Putting aside the silliness of this hypothetical scenario, he got an unhindered shot - nothing that happens after the ball is released can possibly impact the motionof the ball that is already in the air. And more to the point: what does that have to do with whehter it becomes an intentional foul?!?

Iaabo ...
 

Peter Webb, Coordinator of Interpreters for IAABO (International), states that he received this (below) interpretation from the NFHS regarding the new free throw rule. We are using this interpretation here in Connecticut.

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)

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

Be sure to check you local listings.

A common foul is "a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor *intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul."

A free thrower cannot possibly be "trying or tapping for a field goal" because a try on a free throw is not a "try for field goal" by 4-41-2. If it is a personal foul on a free thrower who is an airborne shooter and the foul doesn't meet any of the remaining criteria that would it exclude it from being a common foul, it has to be a common foul.

There seems to be a recurring theme of "airborne shooter" here. An airborne shooter, by definition, is a player who has released the ball on a try for goal, or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the court. A "try" is also defined as an attempt to score a 2 or 3 point basket. Based on the definitions, I don't think a free throw shooter, even if he jumps, can be defined as an "Airborne Shooter."

That said, any foul on the shooter must be treated like a foul on any of the other players, IMO.

Actually, 4-20-1 explicitly defines a free throw as a "try for goal". 4-41-2 only defines a "try for field goal" as an attempt to score two or three points. 4-1-1 defines an airborne shooter as a player who has released the ball on a try for goal. By 4-19-2, a personal foul is excluded from being a common foul if it is committed against a player trying or tapping for field goal. A free thrower may be an airborne shooter, which means contact involving him after the ball is dead may still be considered a foul even if it's not intentional or flagrant by 4-19-1 Note, but any foul committed against a free thrower who is an airborne shooter must be a common foul.

Try this one:

I honestly think you're splitting hairs here. It's a shooting foul. Let me ask, if the defense committed a foul after the shooter had begun his shooting motion but before it was released, are you going to allow the basket to count if made?