Faker ...
 

I'm seeing more players on the lane faking to try to get opponents to enter early. So far, just fakes, no opponents entering early due to the fake.

The fake (on the marked lane space) has to cause the opponent to enter early, or no violation? Right?

Shooter fakes? Automatic violation? Right?

9-1-3b: "...nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate."
Seems the emphasis is on "fake" over against "to cause".
Had this only once this season. Surprised me enough that I counted the faker's teammate's FT before giving the throw-in to the fakee's team. I was wrong. Hadn't seen it ever under the previous rules for lane entry.

I have not seen anything much more physical than I saw during any other rebounding action. And most defenders only go up to the shooter, I have not seen much pushing or bumping. Yes it has come close to happening, but I hope there is no change in the rule. We just should call the foul.

And I think what Bob said about a mechanics change is a good idea as the C is often trying to watch the flight of the ball.

Peace

FT Shooter Displacement 1

FT Shooter Displacement 2

Embedded for better viewing.
 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/70UZIhwL-00" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0NJ4SpR6_wU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I hate to say it, but notice how those clips are both girls games. I don't know why boxing out the shooter is such a coaching fascination in the girls game, but 90% of those fouls come from that arena.

Also, both clips are common fouls. Good job by both C's. The second clip it looked like he had a very patient whistle; he probably wasn't going to call it if the FT was good. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think that's what happened there.

Actually, it's easy to KNOW that this is a live ball foul. Even if you don't see this play happen, you know that the ball doesn't go thru the net and THEN a FT shooter is blocked out. It simply never happens like that.

The fact that they didn't call the foul when it happened, went to the monitor and reviewed it, and STILL got it wrong boggles my mind. Almost NONE of the Dead ball Contact Rechnical Foul criteria were met on this play.

If I'm the supervisor, seven guys are getting a phone call from me (3 officials, each head coach, each AD, & my boss) and probably two officials are losing an assignment......

I just don't understand how the crew messed this one up.

Could a foul have been called? Sure. The FT shooter was displaced. But nothing was called. They went to the monitor. It was clear the ball was still live. The contact wasn't flagrant. There was nothing they could do. For Wymer to come up with the interpretation is really, really bad. We should expect more from someone in his position. They didn't just kick a call. They misinterpreted the whole situation, WITH the benefit of review. They can't miss that.

I agree. And I was told that officials have brain farts. So I guess that is acceptable in some people's eyes. But this was a very basic rule as well.

Peace

I'll second that.

Let's put this play in an NFHS game and say that the contact did occur after the ball passed through the basket.
Now we have a rule which tells us to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.
What do you guys think is the right standard for making that determination?
Do you use Terry Wymer's "in an unnecessary manner" to judge the contact or would you consider if the contact happened during a live ball and ask yourself if you would call an intentional or flagrant personal foul? I think that the mindset with which we examine such things can render different conclusions.

I would lean towards the later ... would it have been intentional during a live ball. But I would give very little benefit of the doubt to the fouler (similar to how I would handle it in a game where players had already had some rough/hard fouls -- more likely to rule intentional on something borderline).

The foul in the OP, in my opinion, should be ignored if it occured after the ball was dead as I think the contact was minimal and not dirty in any way -- just happened to hit a sensitive area.

I don't judge the contact in the play as excessive or intentional, thus I'd have nothing (might warn the player not to displace the shooter). There's no reason to create a bigger problem by calling a foul here. JMO.

The contact was intentional, it wasn't an accident. What reason would there be for such contact after the ball is dead?

The ball was not dead when contact occurred. It hadn't even entered the cylinder yet. There is a lot of contact that happens while the ball is live that is intentional. Should that be called the same way? #1 wasn't seeking his private section, he wasn't even looking. He made a normal basketball box out while the play was live. The only thing that should have been done about it is "sorry coach I missed the contact". But instead, they about send Illinois straight to the NIT with some made up stuff about "dead ball technical". Never saw a dead ball technical while the ball is LIVE!

What's hilarious to me is that after they tried justifying that within the rules, the player misses 2 out of 3, misses a short jumper in the lane, and then grabs Illinois' number 21 from behind to commit a foul and nothing other than a common foul is called. If they're so dead set on the rules, then call an intentional there as well!

But I am just an Illinois fan griping (within the rules). If they lost the game that way, it would have ruined my week.