NFHS Rules, How would you administer

[Nevadaref]

1. Double violation by B1 and A1 = no point for the FT and no replacement FT.

2. The foul by B2 is a part of a false MULTIPLE foul. Since A1 was shooting we know that the previous foul with the same amount of time on the clock was also by Team B. Fouls by the same team are deemed "multiple" while fouls by opposing teams are "double."

3. The foul by B2 is a common foul, unless the FT shooter was airborne as some players do jump when attempting FTs in which case it would be a shooting foul.

4. Since this was a 1&1 and the first attempt was unsuccessful, proceed to the administration of B2's foul (1&1 or 2 shots [can't be a throw-in as we already know that Team B had at least 7 team fouls with the prior foul]) and continue as normal from there.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. The foul by B2 is a common foul, unless the FT shooter was airborne as some players do jump when attempting FTs in which case it would be a shooting foul.

So if a player gets fouled on a free throw and is an airborne shooter, how many shots does he get?

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So if a player gets fouled on a free throw and is an airborne shooter, how many shots does he get?

I was wondering the same thing, and it's looking like the answer is zero unless the bonus rule is in effect. It seems that the rules distinguish between a try for goal and a try for field goal. A try for goal occurs anytime a player throws the ball toward his own basket in an attempt to score a goal. A try for field goal, on the other hand, occurs when a player throws the ball toward his own basket in an attempt to score two or three points.

Becoming an airborne shooter only requires that you've released a try for goal and haven't returned to the floor, so a free thrower may be an airborne shooter. However, a foul against a player in the act of shooting that would otherwise be a common foul is only excluded from the definition of common foul if the player is attempting a try for field goal. Therefore, a foul against a free thrower who is an airborne shooter is a common foul.

A free thrower may be an airborne shooter, though. This could create the odd quirk where A2, who is not in a marked lane space, violates by stepping over the three-point line after A1 has released his free throw on a try for goal. Immediately after A2's violation, B2 (who did not violate before A2) fouls A1, who is an airborne shooter. A2's violation causes the ball to become dead immediately, which means no point can be scored on the free throw, but B2 fouled an airborne shooter, the penalty for which (in this very particular case) is the ball out of bounds for A unless the bonus rule is in effect. If A1 is entitled to more free throws from the first foul in this false multiple foul, the lane is cleared and A1 will attempt those free throws. Following that, or if A1 is not entitled to more free throws, then the penalty for B2's foul is assessed and either A will have a designated-spot throw-in on their end line or A1 will shoot one-and-one or two.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So if a player gets fouled on a free throw and is an airborne shooter, how many shots does he get?

Excellent question. I'll see if I can obtain an official answer.

[billyu2]

Since by definition a free throw is the "opportunity to score one point by an unhindered try for goal" I would think the foul would have to be ruled intentional IMO.

[Sharpshooternes]

This is a fun topic !!

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Since by definition a free throw is the "opportunity to score one point by an unhindered try for goal" I would think the foul would have to be ruled intentional IMO.

That's a really good point.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Since by definition a free throw is the "opportunity to score one point by an unhindered try for goal" I would think the foul would have to be ruled intentional IMO.

Putting aside whether this can actually happen, I don't see the logic to get to intentional at all. A1 is shooting his free throw. B1 legally enters the lane legally on release and has the highly unusual jump shooter manage to hang in the air on the FT till he makes it 3' + to make contact before he touches down. Nothing suggests excessive force. Nothnig suggests he intended to foul. How do you get to intentional?

(I'd also question your premise of unhindered. A1 did get an unhindered shot if B1 didn't enter the lane until the release - that shooters remain protected after the release if airborne is a separate concept.)

Now, if B1 was enternig before the release and clanging the shooter, I can see the argument for intentional, as it appears he is intentionally trying to mess with the shooter.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Putting aside whether this can actually happen, I don't see the logic to get to intentional at all. A1 is shooting his free throw. B1 legally enters the lane legally on release and has the highly unusual jump shooter manage to hang in the air on the FT till he makes it 3' + to make contact before he touches down. Nothing suggests excessive force. Nothnig suggests he intended to foul. How do you get to intentional?

(I'd also question your premise of unhindered. A1 did get an unhindered shot if B1 didn't enter the lane until the release - that shooters remain protected after the release if airborne is a separate concept.)

Now, if B1 was enternig before the release and clanging the shooter, I can see the argument for intentional, as it appears he is intentionally trying to mess with the shooter.

Note that it IS possible for B1 to foul A1 having never left their lane space either before or after the release.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Putting aside whether this can actually happen, I don't see the logic to get to intentional at all. A1 is shooting his free throw. B1 legally enters the lane legally on release and has the highly unusual jump shooter manage to hang in the air on the FT till he makes it 3' + to make contact before he touches down. Nothing suggests excessive force. Nothnig suggests he intended to foul. How do you get to intentional?

(I'd also question your premise of unhindered. A1 did get an unhindered shot if B1 didn't enter the lane until the release - that shooters remain protected after the release if airborne is a separate concept.)

Now, if B1 was enternig before the release and clanging the shooter, I can see the argument for intentional, as it appears he is intentionally trying to mess with the shooter.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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?

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?!?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Putting aside whether this can actually happen, I don't see the logic to get to intentional at all. A1 is shooting his free throw. B1 legally enters the lane legally on release and has the highly unusual jump shooter manage to hang in the air on the FT till he makes it 3' + to make contact before he touches down. Nothing suggests excessive force. Nothnig suggests he intended to foul. How do you get to intentional?

(I'd also question your premise of unhindered. A1 did get an unhindered shot if B1 didn't enter the lane until the release - that shooters remain protected after the release if airborne is a separate concept.)

Now, if B1 was enternig before the release and clanging the shooter, I can see the argument for intentional, as it appears he is intentionally trying to mess with the shooter.

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.)

[BillyMac]

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.