'15-'16 NFHS Changes

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nope, the ball is still live (I know you know this) since it's a "delayed dead ball."

So we are conceivably going to give A1 a new shot for missed the free throw, then additional free throws for the foul. I prefer just to call the foul, but I'm flexible.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we are conceivably going to give A1 a new shot for missed the free throw, then additional free throws for the foul. I prefer just to call the foul, but I'm flexible.

Conceivably. By rule, if you call the foul, you're going to have to call the violation as well. I'm with you, but then again, just calling a couple of these violations will take care of the problem, too.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

Conceivably. By rule, if you call the foul, you're going to have to call the violation as well. I'm with you, but then again, just calling a couple of these violations will take care of the problem, too.

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

Exactly, what advantage is the defender getting by crossing the line but not fouling? If they foul, call it. The shot will be long gone by the time the defender gets there. No need for violation that doesn't fix anything.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

At our local IAABO interpretation meeting (new rules) back in the fall, we were told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

Here' what the IAABO Power Point slide actually stated:

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

At our local IAABO interpretation meeting (new rules) back in the fall, we were told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

Here' what the IAABO Power Point slide actually stated:

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

Which was worse than any directive they've ever issued.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Which was worse than any directive they've ever issued.

That's what happens when an organization whose chief responsibility is to train, and educate, basketball officials decides to start making up their own rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

I don't see a problem, but they never ask me. I could see them adding this in an effort to "clean up" the shots, or as an issue of fairness. If the shooter can't leave, no one else can enter.