NFHS Rules, How would you administer

[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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Adam

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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

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.

Try this one:

Originally Posted by 4-20-1

A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from....

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?

[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.