The Official Forum - Free Throw Restrictions ...

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Free Throw Restrictions ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99371-free-throw-restrictions.html)

Free Throw Restrictions ...

On a few occasions this season I have questioned one aspect of the new free throw rule, specifically how IAABO, especially how IAABO in Connecticut, has interpreted one aspect of this rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 941796)

This rule (9-9 below) appeared in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit.

9-9: No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line. Note: The restriction applies until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends.

Now the NFHS had decided to, again, go to the release, however, 9-9 is not in the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball rulebook.

Last night was our local IAABO board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting. Our interpreter told us that there was a "clarification" from the "national office" regarding protecting the free throw shooter, and that the 1996-97 Rule 9-9 (above) is "in play" for this year.

At the least, this is "in play" for the entire state of Connecticut (we're 100% IAABO, all local interpreters coordinate their new rules presentations). Does anyone know if this "clarification" also came down from IAABO international (i.e. Peter Webb).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 943262)

Here's the text of the Power Point slide: If the defender along the free throw lane line breaks the plane of the free throw line, a violation has occurred. Use delayed violation signal. Hold whistle until free throw is completed. If free throw is made, ignore violation; if free throw is missed, award a replacement free throw. (9-1-3-B)

Here's the explanation given by our local interpreter: The ruling was a NFHS response received by IAABO.

Today I received an email from IAABO Board 403, the Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association, with the following Play of the Week:

Play #2 - A-1 is attempting a free throw. After A-1 releases the ball, B-4, from a marked lane space, boxes out A-1 by stepping across the free throw line before the ball contacts the ring and making incidental contact with the shooter. The free throw is unsuccessful. The Center official rules a violation on B-4 and awards A-1 a substitute free throw. Was the official correct?
Answer: The official was correct. The rule change this season allows players in marked lane spaces to enter the lane upon the release of the free throw. However, no player may penetrate the free throw line in either direction until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. (References: Rule 9.1.3g, NFHS Interpretation)

So it appears that an IAABO state, other than Connecticut, has used this "interpretation".

I decided to take a closer look at their citation 9-1-3-G: A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary ...

9-1-3-4 The restrictions in 9-1-3-B and C apply until the ball touches the ring or backcourt or until the free throw ends.

9-1-3-4 does not refer to 9-1-3-G, it only refers to 9-1-3-B and C.

I could see how IAABO can call the free throw line "any lane boundary" but the restrictions ending don't match up with the citation (release versus hit).

Why hasn't the NFHS chimed in on this?

For reference purposes, here's 9.1.3.G (below) which doesn't have anything to do with the play described:

9.1.3 SITUATION G: As A1 starts the free-throwing motion, B1 hurriedly raises
his/her arms. In the judgment of the official, the action of B1 disconcerts A1
and causes the attempt to miss the basket ring. RULING: As soon as the ball
misses the ring, it becomes dead. Since free thrower A1 violated following disconcertion,
a substitute free throw is awarded. (9-1-3a Penalty 4c)

The provided citation is incorrect. It shouldn't say "NFHS Interpretation." That should read "IAABO Interpretation."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 956021)

The provided citation is incorrect. It shouldn't say "NFHS Interpretation." That should read "IAABO Interpretation."

I'm thinking the same thing, and I'm concerned that IAABO (and I'm a loyal member) has become a rules "activist", creating their own interpretations, (not their job), and their own rules (again, not their job), that don't align with NFHS rules, and interpretations.

Several years ago, IAABO moved away from NFHS mechanics and published their own IAABO mechanics manual. Will the same thing eventually happen with rules, and caseplays, an IAABO rulebook, and an IAABO casebook?

Are Connecticut, and South Carolina, the only IAABO states (or parts of states) that follow this free throw restriction "interpretation"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 956024)

Are Connecticut, and South Carolina, the only IAABO states (or parts of states) that follow this free throw restriction "interpretation"?

I got the same email you did today. All officials in SC are required to attend a rules clinic in the fall, and the presenter was the director of the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association, which is the only IAABO board in SC. We were given this interpretation at the rules clinic, and I thought it was "fishy." Turns out, despite what the presenter told us, the NFHS put out no such interpretation. I haven't had it happen yet this year. I doubt all officials in SC are on the same page with this and wouldn't be surprised if that district is the only one actively enforcing that interpretation. Argh. Such is life in my state.

When the new rules come out, if the NFHS hasn't addressed this, I'll follow up with the mile high gurus.

Guests, Like Fish, Begin To Smell After Three Days (Benjamin Franklin) ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 956025)

All officials in SC are required to attend a rules clinic in the fall, and the presenter was the director of the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association, which is the only IAABO board in SC. We were given this interpretation at the rules clinic, and I thought it was "fishy." Turns out, despite what the presenter told us, the NFHS put out no such interpretation.

Same exact scenario here, in The Constitution State. It smelled "fishy" then, and it still smells "fishy" to this day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 956024)

Are Connecticut, and South Carolina, the only IAABO states (or parts of states) that follow this free throw restriction "interpretation"?

Nope. We've been laboring under that restriction this season too.

Maniac (Michael Sembello, 1983) ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maineac (Post 956061)

We've been laboring under that restriction this season too.

You had better be, with Peter Webb looking over your shoulder.

I'm not quite sure that "laboring" is the right term. It's just odd that many IAABO members are including restrictions in the new free throw rule that the rest of the country, using NFHS rules, and interpretations, aren't using.

Now Even More Perplexed ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 956522)

For you Billy.

Thanks. I, also, got the ref60 email this morning. Martin (author), Malloy, and Battista, are IAABO guys. The first two from New Jersey, and the last from the Washington, D.C. area. Why aren't they aware of the IAABO interpretation? Do they not know the IAABO secret handshake? Do they not have IAABO secret decoder rings? Do they not read Sportorial? Do they prefer to follow "real" NFHS rules?

Check out Play #2 (below):

http://district3hoops.com/rules/thisweek.php