Free Throw Shooter

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Touché.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

It is 100% unnecessary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

I don't believe that it is possible to observe the player in the marked lane space both entering the lane following the release and then again notice the timing that he crossed the FT line to determine if it was prior to the ball contacting the ring or backboard.

One of the reasons that the NFHS gave when reverting to entering on the release was that it would be easier for officials to look first for violations and then be able to switch to looking for fouls. Yet with this additional restriction, the officials now have to look for a second violation at the same time that they are supposed to be looking for contact fouls amongst the rebounders. It isn't going to work well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

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