Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

Sure -- and if this happens -- get the foul. No need for it to be a violation, imo.

And, while they did get the call wrong, it's pretty hard to figure it out during play -- by the time you recognize it was a ful and blow the whistle, the ball was through.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sure -- and if this happens -- get the foul. No need for it to be a violation, imo.

And, while they did get the call wrong, it's pretty hard to figure it out during play...

Hard to figure out? I completely disagree. The slot was watching the flight of the ball, pure and simple. The shooter and the guys across the lane are his responsibility. Easy common foul call if you're looking where you're supposed to. Instead, white coach was probably livid, they went to the monitor, maybe even realized all they had was CF (which you cannot assess after review and a no-call on court) but decided to call CDBT to save face because the shooter got hit in the shamrocks.

Just because a hard box out of the shooter usually only happens in GJV basketball doesn't mean that's the only place it happens.

Someone probably got a phone call over this one.

[bob jenkins]

Sorry - -it's easy to get the foul -- it's hard to determine during action whether it happened before (live ball) or after (dead ball) the ball went through the basket.

And, honestly, I'd favor a mechanics change where once the ball is released (and, heck, maybe even before) -- T is responsible for violations by and fouls on the shooter. C needs to quickly shift to watch the rebounding action on his side.

[JRutledge]

That is a foul IMO. Usually you do not see that much contact.

I was told about this yesterday and it was assumed that the kid embellished. I think he got hit in the sensitive area and reacted. I would have had no problem with a foul here.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is a foul IMO. Usually you do not see that much contact.

I was told about this yesterday and it was assumed that the kid embellished. I think he got hit in the sensitive area and reacted. I would have had no problem with a foul here.

Peace

Definitely a foul. Problem is, the crew ruled that the contact came after the ball was dead, and thus charged a CDBTF. Should've been a personal foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Definitely a foul. Problem is, the crew ruled that the contact came after the ball was dead, and thus charged a CDBTF. Should've been a personal foul.

And once missed, it's missed forever even with the monitor review since it was nothing more than a common foul.

I agree with the post above -- they felt like they had to get something and it certainly wasn't a F1. So they r-e-a-c-h-e-d and said it was a dead ball foul, which allowed them to call a technical. Except the ball wasn't dead when the contact occurred.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sorry - -it's easy to get the foul -- it's hard to determine during action whether it happened before (live ball) or after (dead ball) the ball went through the basket.

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......

[griblets]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'd favor a mechanics change where once the ball is released (and, heck, maybe even before) -- T is responsible for violations by and fouls on the shooter. C needs to quickly shift to watch the rebounding action on his side.

I'll second that.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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.

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

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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 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.