Free Throw Shooter

OKREF

At the very least it's a violation, and depending on the contact it may be a foul, I guess is how I am looking at it.

BigCat

BadNewsRef wrote
I'll treat it like we already treat throw-ins.

If there is illegal contact I'm calling a foul; no or marginal contact, I'll call the violation.

I understand where you are coming from on throw ins. Guy breaks plane and fouls we call intentional foul. however, on FTs we have specific procedure. defense violates--arm out, delayed violation. If he continues and fouls then call foul also. If ball goes in then you are only penalizing foul. If it doesnt, then shooter gets another FT and then penalty for foul. We will see what they come up with in the book.

Nevadaref

BigCat wrote
I understand where you are coming from on throw ins. Guy breaks plane and fouls we call intentional foul. however, on FTs we have specific procedure. defense violates--arm out, delayed violation. If he continues and fouls then call foul also. If ball goes in then you are only penalizing foul. If it doesnt, then shooter gets another FT and then penalty for foul. We will see what they come up with in the book.

Throw-in: defender breaks the plane and contacts the ball or thrower = official calls the technical foul or intentional personal foul AND issues a team delay of game warning, if one has not already been charged. The inconsistency comes when this action occurs after a delay warning has already been charged. The official doesn't issue two technical fouls or one IPF and a tech on the same play.

Nevadaref

OKREF wrote
Just read this on the NFHS site.

3. FREE THROW SHOOTER

Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

I'm assuming this is a violation and will be treated as if someone entered the lane early. Or if there is contact it could be a foul?

As I predicted, the ego of IAABO interpreter Peter Webb prevails with a ridiculous NFHS rule change.

Adam

Nevadaref wrote
As I predicted, the ego of IAABO interpreter Peter Webb prevails with a ridiculous NFHS rule change.

I've got a feeling they intended to make this change in the first place, reverting back to the way the rule used to be before they changed it the last time.

Again, I'll be mildly surprised if they don't just make it a case play and leave the rule alone.

crosscountry55

I'll call it however they write it up in the case book, personal feelings set aside.

I will say that that this fixation on boxing out the shooter has become a bit absurd lately, especially in summer ball. So something does need to be done to clean it up. You rarely see this in college ball, so I'm not sure why it's such a coaching fascination in high school.

It would be nice if we also felt as obliged to clean up some of the garbage between players in the marked lane spaces, but for some reason we loathe calling fouls down there.

Raymond

crosscountry55 wrote
I'll call it however they write it up in the case book, personal feelings set aside.

I will say that that this fixation on boxing out the shooter has become a bit absurd lately, especially in summer ball. So something does need to be done to clean it up. You rarely see this in college ball, so I'm not sure why it's such a coaching fascination in high school.

....

You don't see it in college ball b/c college coaches are smarter than HS coaches. There is no need for the topside defenders to actively "box out" the FT shooter; they should already have gained an advantageous position by stepping into the lane upon the release. If they simply do that, any illegal contact will come from the free throw shooter displacing the defender from behind.

BillyMac

Nevadaref wrote
As I predicted, the ego of IAABO interpreter Peter Webb prevails with a ridiculous NFHS rule change.

I will agree with you that Mr. Webb's insistence on IAABO officials using this rule last year (in essence, making IAABO a rule making organization rather than a basketball official educational organization, as it's supposed to be) before the NFHS clarified this issue was totally ridiculous.

However, if you think that the actual rule is ridiculous, then why didn't you complain that it was ridiculous when it was in the NFHS rulebook back in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit?

[deleted]

BadNewsRef wrote
You don't see it in college ball b/c college coaches are smarter than HS coaches. There is no need for the topside defenders to actively "box out" the FT shooter; they should already have gained an advantageous position by stepping into the lane upon the release. If they simply do that, any illegal contact will come from the free throw shooter displacing the defender from behind.

Maybe the referees should all meet and release a "Coaching Points of Emphasis" like they do for us. 😀

Nevadaref

BillyMac wrote
I will agree with you that Mr. Webb's insistence on IAABO officials using this rule last year (in essence, making IAABO a rule making organization rather than a basketball official educational organization, as it's supposed to be) before the NFHS clarified this issue was totally ridiculous.

However, if you think that the actual rule is ridiculous, then why didn't you complain that it was ridiculous when it was in the NFHS rulebook back in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit?

Because I first became a HS basketball official for the 1997-98 season.

BryanV21

I realize that the delayed violation thing could be a problem with this, but what about ignoring the foul (if there is one), unless the foul is intentional or flagrant? Don't we do that after other violations?

BigCat

BryanV21 wrote
I realize that the delayed violation thing could be a problem with this, but what about ignoring the foul (if there is one), unless the foul is intentional or flagrant? Don't we do that after other violations?

if the ball is dead you ingore fouls unless intentional/flagrant etc. most violations do make ball dead. however, violation by defense on FT does not cause ball to be dead.

Raymond

BigCat wrote
if the ball is dead you ingore fouls unless intentional/flagrant etc. most violations do make ball dead. however, violation by defense on FT does not cause ball to be dead.

Plus, it wouldn't be too hard to deem it intentional if I needed to deal with a knucklehead. 😎

BillyMac

Nevadaref wrote
Because I first became a HS basketball official for the 1997-98 season.

Touché.

Rich

Nevadaref wrote
As I predicted, the ego of IAABO interpreter Peter Webb prevails with a ridiculous NFHS rule change.

Ha ha!

I knew this would be a rule, just as it was in the 1990s.

They forgot it last year, they fixed it this year.

APG

Ask yourself this...how many lane violations were called before the rule went back to the release? If the NFHS wants this to situation be a violation, they do they really think officials will call a violation on THIS play? I highly doubt it.

OKREF

Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

Rich

APG wrote
Ask yourself this...how many lane violations were called before the rule went back to the release? If the NFHS wants this to situation be a violation, they do they really think officials will call a violation on THIS play? I highly doubt it.

Well, I did back then. Boxing out the shooter was an issue and they eliminated it with this rule and its enforcement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Camron Rust

OKREF wrote
Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

It is 100% unnecessary.

[deleted]

I had a girls game this year where a defender boxing out the shoot knocked the shooter down. I saw it at Trail but C (multiple state finals official) did not make a call. At the next timeout C comes over talking about how he missed the play and should have called a tech (for dead ball contact). I was really surprised to hear that, given the ball was still live when the contact occurred.

I hope this new "rule" should eliminate refs thinking they should call a tech for this.