Free Throw Shooter
 

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?

It'll be interesting to see where they put this, and how it's worded, in the actual rule. Given their recent record, I could see them simply making it a case play instead.

I'm calling fouls.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ridiculousness ...
 

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?

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

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

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.

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

Pardon My French ...
 

Touché.

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.

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.

Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

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

It is 100% unnecessary.

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.

Had the ball gone through the basket?

If not, another example that everybody makes mistakes. This exact play was posted here from an NCAA-M game this season. The ball was still live during the contact and after monitor review the officials went with a DBCT.

I was in camp and saw it from the Trail and called a personal foul on the defender. Coach wasn't happy, but the observers didn't even comment on the play.

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.

Some officials just move up on skills other than rules knowledge. I know a few very charismatic officials that are generally good officials but weak on rules but can BS their way through just about anything they don't really know. Some of them are are so charismatic that they'll be believed so thoroughly that when it is called correctly by others it isn't believed. We probably have some of those here too.

The difference is that this violation can only occur at one location.....much easier to watch than 6 locations along the lane.

That said, I never bought that it makes a difference in watching for the violation. Either way, you have to determine if any player enters the lane before some independent event (shot released or shot hits).

For the release, I can stand at floor level and observe the players in the marked lane spaces as well as see the shooter with the ball in his hands and determine when it is released. All of this is easily within my field of vision.

For the ball contacting the ring or backboard, I cannot (especially from the Lead position) see that instant without having to look up and in a different location than where the players along the lane are. My field of view does not contain both of these.

The above is why I much prefer the release for judging FT violations as opposed to contact on the ring or backboard.

Again for the NFHS to now add a second moment which the L and C must observe in order to properly determine violations is poor.

I would offer that a mechanics change should be made to make this secondary violation the responsibility of the T in 3-man as the T is already taking the players outside of the 3pt line and their restriction is when the ball contacts the ring or backboard. For 2-man, I believe that the NFHS has given the officials an impossible task--observe two different timing points for violations in two different locations as well as clean up rough play in the rebounding action as the players enter the lane.

Given that I said the ball was still live, what do you think?

Yeah I would call a common foul if I had a do-over. Not a tech though, that would surely piss the coach off more. I got enough flak for calling a tech this year after a defender jumped to block a layup and then pulled the offensive player to the floor by his neck. I knew the ball had gone through before the contact occurred (video back me up) so I called a tech instead of an INT. Got my first-ever call from an assignor about the play.

Had the shooter returned to the floor already?

Sure had.

It is extremely late for a defender to be fouling a shooter when both the ball has cleared the basket and the shooter has returned to the floor. :eek:

Deserved whack!

The mechanics need to be changed so T gets this. C has moved his/her vision to the first two players on the lane to watch for rebounding fouls.

I actually appreciate this clarification, but I still have questions. If a defender violates, and does so enough to be considered a common foul, do I have the option of calling the foul over the violation? or do I have to go with the violation since it happened first? But then wouldn't my foul then potentially be a dead ball foul? Would it depend on if the FT is good or not?

Hypothetical: FT shooter releases, defender crosses the FT line (violation) and slams into the shooters knees (enough for a common foul) while the shot is still in the air.
A) shot misses
B) shot is made

If A, then should we just call the violation and award another FT, but if B call the foul since the violation is waived? If contact is significant enough, could you potentially have a violation AND a technical on a miss? Because I can't call a violation AND a common foul can I?

For you guys that don't think this is an issue, you must not do much girls varsity. Girls are bad about this. At least from where I am.

I was going over this scenario with some friends last night.

Remember, when the defense violates during a free throw the ball remains live. Play continues. When the player who violates continues into the shooter while the ball is live it is a common foul unless you deem it intentional/flagrant etc.

If the FT is missed the violation is penalized--replacement FT with no one on line. (if the violation and foul were on first shot of two shot foul then also shoot the second one with no one on line.) Then penalize the foul. If the FT was made the violation is not penalized. Penalize the foul. thx

This was our consensus.

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.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Yes sir. Could possibly have nothing on the contact since it could be dead ball contact.

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

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

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

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

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

What's The Matter With Kids Today ???
 

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

I do associate the phrase "knuckleheads" with teenagers.

This, And Two Bucks, Will Get You A Cup Of Coffee At Starbucks ...
 

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.

I believe I already said that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't Kill The Messenger ...
 

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

The ball is still live, there is absolutely no rules basis for such an interpretation. Actually, it goes completely against the rules in regards to illegal contact during a live ball.

I'll continue with my correct interpretation of calling a foul. I don't follow IAABO interps.

To steal from JRut,

IAABO created this mess. Let them live with it.

We Can Always Hope ...
 

Unfortunately, I have to. Now that he's got his "interpretation" changed into an actual rule, perhaps Mr. Webb will now rethink his "intentional" interpretation, and bring it back a little.

Just remember that most of us do not, so you should quit asking us why IAABO passed such an interpretation. ;)

And unless they put it into a case play, or I get direction from my local IAABO board to do it that way, you won't find me treating contact with a FT shooter like it's dead ball contact.

NFHS Rulebook ...
 

Well, at least the "cross the line" IAABO interpretation is now part of the NFHS rule book, so I feel better about calling it, and teaching it. Hopefully the IAABO "intentional, or nothing" interpretation will go away.