Free Throw Shooter

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I cannot think of a legitimate reason why someone would be initiating contact 15' from the basket after the ball goes through the net.

I do not associate the phrase "legitimate reason" with teenagers.....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It could feasibly happen, although not likely, most likely the contact would begin prior to the ball going through the basket.

If the illegal contact began while the ball was live then it would be a PF.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I cannot think of a legitimate reason why someone would be initiating contact 15' from the basket after the ball goes through the net.

Anticipation....they start moving towards contact before the shot goes in, the ball goes in, then they make contact.

[BillyMac]

Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way?

Originally Posted by BigCat

I do not associate the phrase "legitimate reason" with teenagers.

I do associate the phrase "knuckleheads" with teenagers.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You also have to adjust it based on whether the contact was before or after the ball goes through the basket. If it's after, the contact would be ignored unless it's I or F. ... or, you can just assume that if the violation happened, then the contact happened before the ball went through.

For what it's worth, if anything, here's Mr. Webb's IAABO Power Point slide from IAABO's 2014-15 new rules presentation:

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the illegal contact began while the ball was live then it would be a PF.

I believe I already said that.

[Freddy]

To recap, with whatever new verbage actually finds its way into the rulebook this season, this play, previously posted, is still a foul, right?

Defender Fouls Free Thrower

Or would a violation find its way in here somehow?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

To recap, with whatever new verbage actually finds its way into the rulebook this season, this play, previously posted, is still a foul, right?

Defender Fouls Free Thrower

Or would a violation find its way in here somehow?

Well...it would seem as though it's a delayed violation first (assuming that's what the interp calls for). Sure there's contact but what advantage is gained if Team A is going to get another shot?

Of course, I could be just as confused as the NFHS/IAABO powers that be.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm calling fouls.

Another that's easy to just call a foul on . . .

Free Thrower Fouled

I guess we'll see what direction they want us to go on this. Only saw this in girls games last year. Boys don't seem to do it.
My guess is it'll sneak its way in as an actual rule change or addition but the phraseology will include all kinds of unintended consequences for which they'll need years to straighten out. Just my guess.

[ballgame99]

On that first example you clearly have a violation AND a foul. So based on what we talked about yesterday, since the FT was missed you would call the violation and reshoot with the lane cleared, then address the foul, either baseline OOB or shooting bonus. The second example the contact/violation is very close to being dead ball, but I think you call it the same way.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

On that first example you clearly have a violation AND a foul. So based on what we talked about yesterday, since the FT was missed you would call the violation and reshoot with the lane cleared, then address the foul, either baseline OOB or shooting bonus. The second example the contact/violation is very close to being dead ball, but I think you call it the same way.

We will have to see what guidance, if any, they give us. Normal violation rule by defense during FT is that ball remains live. penalize any other foul that occurs. If FT missed shoot replacement throw first. as we discussed.

When the violation and foul occur at FT line they are very close in time. body goes over the line and crash into FT shooter right away. I could see them, as Billy has set out a few times, saying penalize the violation and not the foul unless intentional….we will just have to see.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Well...it would seem as though it's a delayed violation first (assuming that's what the interp calls for). Sure there's contact but what advantage is gained if Team A is going to get another shot?

Of course, I could be just as confused as the NFHS/IAABO powers that be.

I'm likely to call both, depending on the severity of the displacement. Just remember, this is 99.99% of the time going to be a common foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm likely to call both, depending on the severity of the displacement. Just remember, this is 99.99% of the time going to be a common foul.

And 99.99% of the time, once you call that foul you won't have any more problems the rest of the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And 99.99% of the time, once you call that foul you won't have any more problems the rest of the game.

Yep, at least after you explain to the coach that backing down a shooter is not "boxing out."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Just remember, this is 99.99% of the time going to be a common foul.

Unless the NFHS was persuaded by Mr. Webb to interpret the new rule as ignoring such contact unless it's intentional.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mr. Webb's IAABO Power Point slide from IAABO's 2014-15 new rules presentation:

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional.