Basket Interference with unintended advantage.
 

A wants to miss a free throw, B wants them to make it. We've had the discussion a few times about repeated lane violations.

What if B skips the lane violation and simply commits BI?

If he's quick enough to commit BI on a free throw which was deliberately missed without violating, I say he deserves whatever benefits go with it.

Wasn't there a weird sitch in an NCAAM game a few years back game with unintended consequences, like a TF?

Goal tending on a free throw is a technical foul. Basket Interference is not.

Why "without violating?"

A deliberate miss is usually a hard line drive that may not even enter the cylinder, and if it does, only briefly. One would have to be quick to enter after the release and get a hand in there.

All he needs to do is be grabbing the net when it hits the rim.

What difference does it make if he committed a free throw violation in the process?

I'd likely go with the T, anyway. NFHS 10-3-6 says unsporting acts are "not limited to" the list of items, which includes goaltending a free throw. I'd submit that would include BI, as well. If nothing else, it's certainly an unsporting act, given the reason.

what if the free throw shooter jumps in the air and commits a flagrant foul before the basket interference.

Would you consider a line drive throw which hits the front of the rim to be "on or within" the basket?

*crickets* :o

I could be wrong - but i think he meant as long as the free throw shooter didn't violate. Not, the BI guy.

Nope, for some reason I was thinking the BI wouldn't count if there was a free throw violation first. I was thinking....... You see, it was like this...... I......



Oh, what a tangled web we weave.....

I was hoping you would say, "Yeh, that's the ticket".:)

Not fair... I was eating when I read this. :eek:

Not really. BI on a FT can be a natural and inadvertent result of trying to rebound the FT attempt too early. GT a FT is never a natural result of playing the FT.