Free Throw Shooter

[OKREF]

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?

[Adam]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?