Another first
 

Never seen anything close to this before. H22 shooting the first of a 1&1. I was lead, administering the free throw. It's good. I hear a whistle, see partner with a fist up. H22 is on the floor. "I'm just boxing out." Now H22 shoots his second free throw with the lane cleared, followed by another 1&1 with spaces occupied. Now I'm trail. (2 man) Fan behind me says "Watch 10 ref." V10 turns and smiles at the fan and gives him a thumbs up. Sure enough, on the release he hurls himself at H22 again and lands a pretty good hip-check, despite the fact that H22 took a step back. In spite of all this, again the free throw is good. This time it's my call, and I call it intentional. V10 has his palms outstretched and his most innocent look. "I was just boxing out. I can't box out?" "Not like that." Now we have the lane cleared again, the second of a 1&1, plus two more and the ball back to home. The score at this point is about 50-25 with H leading. V acting head coach requests a timeout. (real head coach was ejected in the first half) "What did he do sir." I explained briefly. "Oh, I didn't see it. Thank you. I'm just trying to get the heck out of here." I agreed "Me, too." To his credit, he put V10 on the bench for the remainder of the game.

For IAABO Only, Maybe Only Connecticut ...
 

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.

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. :(

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.

Not familiar with IAABO rules, never dealt with them.

Just another ref, in the situation you described, I agree with you. Depending on how serious the contact, I may just kick the kid out of the game myself, especially based on his interaction with the fan. Good for the acting coach for sitting the kid the rest of the game. Based on the fact the actual head coach was ejected in the first half, I'd be willing to bet he would not have sat the kid, probably told him to do it again.

IAABO uses the rule set of their local area, they don't have their own. In the US, they use NFHS rules for high school games. There are some mechanic differences, but they're relatively minor. They do issue interpretations, and sometimes they can be a bit wild.

Then again, Mary was known to issue some fairly strange interpretations as well.

+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.

Automatic (Pointer Sisters, 1984) ...
 

Maybe IAABO meant to say that this is an automatic intentional foul, kind of like a foul against the thrower in an inbounding situation:

9-2-10-Penalty: If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender.

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.)

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

"Boxing out is screening, not displacing."

Poorly Thought Out ...
 

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.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7464/1...a0a7f755_m.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7470/1...c5663a78_m.jpg

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.

And we only have that ruling because Mary or one of her friends kicked that situation in a game back when the boundary plane mattered. :(

Interesting, Very Interesting ...
 

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate? Maybe just a short synopsis.