NFHS Rules, How would you administer
 

Team A shooting free throw **edit the first of a 1 and 1**. Lane violation on B1, B2 comes in to box out shooter A1 and knocks her down, and free throw is an air ball. Shooter is fouled before, the ball is blown dead as an air ball if that makes a difference in your mind.

Sorry folks..I knew I was forgetting an important piece to this. Thanks

Need More Information ...
 

I'm having a little trouble following the question (not quite enough information) but I'll give it a shot:

1) Delayed violation by B1 means that A1 will get another free throw (she missed) if the official feels that the B1 violation was disconcerting. If B1 was not disconcerting, then it's a double violation (normally an alternating-possession throwin, but not here since it's a false mutiple).

2) The foul by B2 on the shooter, assuming that the shooter was not an airborne shooter when the foul occurred, appears to be a common foul, which would give either possession to Team A, or a one and one (or two) to A1 depending on how many team fouls have been charged in the half to Team B.

3) If the miss was the first of a one and one, or a two (or three) shot free throw, then its gets complicated (clearing the lane), and I'll get back to you after we get more information.

1) B2's foul against A1 is a Common Foul.

2) B2's CF is the second foul in a False Double Foul.

Before I go any further, we need to know if A1's air ball was the originally shooter the first FT of a 1+1; the second FT of a 1+1; the first or second FT of a two shot FT penalty; or the first, second, or third FT of a three shot FT penalty.

MTD, Sr.

Now that we know it's the first of 1-1, we can continue.

The miss by A1 was a double violation. It ends the FT sequence and we continue with the FTs for the common foul, with players on the lane.

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.

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

I agree if the B1 violation played no part in the air ball. disconcertion is always considered. if you determine B1 violation did play a part in causing air ball(disconcertion) then the air ball/violation is ignored. (as Billy already said above..) clear the lane and shoot 1 and 1 for the original foul. then bring the other players back on lane for the foul on the free throw shooter.

note--if the air ball was already below ring level(free throw ended) before the foul then foul is ignored unless intentional/flagrant. the whistle being blown isn't the deciding factor here. you probably are aware of that.(referring to OP)

If B1 comes in before it was released, you could consider disconcertion. In fact, I'd lean towards it if there's any significant time elapsed between the two events.

If B1's violation occurred after the release (maybe B1 is not along the lane), however, disconcertion is not an option.

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.

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

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.

This is a fun topic !!:D

That's a really good point.

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.

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?