Free Throw Shooter

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Just read this on the NFHS site.

3. FREE THROW SHOOTER
...

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?

I'm calling fouls.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm calling fouls.

I'm calling the violation, but if the defender actually fouls the shooter as well, we could have both.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm calling the violation, but if the defender actually fouls the shooter as well, we could have both.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

....

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[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.