Another first

[BillyMac]

For IAABO Connecticut officials, this ruling (below) would seem to cover this situation and would allow substitute free throws if they were missed.

No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends. If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For IAABO Connecticut officials, this ruling (below) would seem to cover this situation and would allow substitute free throws if they were missed.

No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends. If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.

That ruling is not happening in my games. That will be a foul.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That ruling is not happening in my games. That will be a foul.

+1

I would like to see some clarification on this from the NF. It seems this is one of those situations where the punishment may not fit the crime. If someone ends up on the floor it doesn't necessarily mean it was intentional. Yet calling nothing if the attempt is made seems to open you up for aggresive play at the other end (that may just continue to escalate). Allowing a common foul during the free throw seems just as reasonable as if it was between two players in the lane. I had this happen during garbage time in a 30 point blow out with the reserves in. The basket was also good, and I called a common foul. Team was in the bonus so he went back to the line.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For IAABO Connecticut officials, this ruling (below) would seem to cover this situation and would allow substitute free throws if they were missed.

No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends. If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.

What a horrible ruling, and this example shows just why! The first collision would result in no penalty at all, since the FT was made. This ruling only permits a violation when the contact isn't deemed intentional or flagrant. What good does that do here? Two thumbs down.

[Rich]

I still haven't figured out the purpose of IAABO all these years later.

I've lived in 6 non-IAABO states and all of them managed to play basketball, with officials.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I still haven't figured out the purpose of IAABO all these years later.

I've lived in 6 non-IAABO states and all of them managed to play basketball, with officials.

I've worked in 2 states, one IAABO and one not. This idiotic ruling aside, I can say the training has been better in the IAABO state.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends. If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.

Can't say I've seen this one. We've discussed breaking the free-throw line's plane (violation), but I don't recall hearing to ignore any contact. In fact, I'm quite sure we've been told to get such contact. (It wouldn't make sense otherwise.)

Originally Posted by just another ref

"I was just boxing out. I can't box out?"

A local veteran taught me this line, and it has come in handy:

"Boxing out is screening, not displacing."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Can't say I've seen this one. We've discussed breaking the free-throw line's plane (violation), but I don't recall hearing to ignore any contact.

The intentional foul part was a slide on the IAABO 2014-15 New Rules and Points of Emphasis Power Point right after the free throw line violation slide.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The intentional foul part was a slide on the IAABO 2014-15 New Rules and Points of Emphasis Power Point right after the free throw line violation slide.

I can see the rationale behind the Connecticut rule. The intent seems to be to reduce the penalty for contact on the free thrower. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's a local decision and when in Rome.... You know several years ago the NCAA opted to go to the point of interruption for most technical fouls instead of automatically giving the offended team a free possession. Likewise, that was a conscious decision to lessen the impact of a penalty. Rules committees are made up of coaches, officials and administrators. If they all agree, I'm ok with it.

On the broader issue of IAABO, I tend to agree that it's an organization in decline. While western high school commissioners and the John Adams regime have focused on the evolution of the game (coach-official interactions, freedom of movement, game management), it seems like IAABO has a static platform that is built around rules, unionization (nepotism?), cabinet government and publishing books. IAABO just hasn't innovated and evolved. I think this is what has caused a lot of fractiousness among east coast boards. I'm not saying IAABO is horrible...it means well and at least some local boards are outstanding. But at the corporate level, I think some soul searching needs to be done.

Interesting observation: I've officiated in six states. Three of them operated under a system where the high school conferences hired a single commissioner/assigner and that person had maybe one or two assistants tops. Those are the states where I've felt the quality of basketball was the best and the assigning and evaluation process was the most fair and transparent. In two states I worked under boards with lots of officers, and I felt the quality of basketball was less and the assigning process was based more on one's totem pole position than raw ability. The final state was sort of a mix (small board, and lots of autonomy given to the assigner). The results were likewise a mix. The thesis to all of this: centralized control is good and boards are not very helpful. This is probably why IAABO struggles to evolve and stay relevant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I can see the rationale behind the Connecticut rule.

I don't. The only way that I could rationalize this IAABO Connecticut rule would be if the wording was changed from, "if there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional" to "if there is illegal contact on the free throw shooter by a defender who breaks the free throw line plane, such illegal contact must be charged as an intentional personal foul".

Otherwise, I don't get it? Why ignore a common foul during a live ball?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't. The only way that I could rationalize this IAABO Connecticut rule would be if the wording was changed from, "if there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional" to "if there is illegal contact on the free throw shooter by a defender who breaks the free throw line plane, such illegal contact must be charged as an intentional personal foul".

Otherwise, I don't get it? Why ignore a common foul during a live ball?

Between you and me, we agree. It's a stretch just for the sake of lessening a penalty. But I hope at least a committee made up of more than just officials came up with this. If it was an arbitrary IAABO declaration and CIAC wasn't represented in the decision, then shame on CIAC and they should consider dissolving their relationship with IAABO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I hope at least a committee made up of more than just officials came up with this.

Is Peter Webb (IAABO Coordinator of Interpreters) considered a committee?