Double Whistle

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Smitty

... sense of urgency that they need to start moving, before they are allowed to, to get into position.

Timing to legally enter versus a sense of urgency to get into position to rebound? Hopefully they'll cancel each other out and we will have the same frequency of violations?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Timing to legally enter versus a sense of urgency to get into position to rebound? Hopefully they'll cancel each other out and we will have the same frequency of violations?

That's not what I was saying. I'm thinking there will be fewer violations. I'm not too worried about it either way.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Smitty

That's not what I was saying. I'm thinking there will be fewer violations. I'm not too worried about it either way.

I'm still just a little worried about those free throw shooters with a little "hitch" in their shot. If opponents are going to violate, it will be in the first period, until they all get used to his shooting routine. We, as officials, will have to really be on our toes in the early part of the game.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...really be on our toes in the early part of the game.

Get 'em early and put 'em on notice, "We're watching." But of course we all subscribe to that.
Those indifferent to calling it under the old rule will be likewise indifferent calling it under the new rule, sad to say.
Six camps this summer and I didn't note any more or fewer lane violations called. Was a "break-in period" for those beyond the arc who immediately learned the new rule applies only to lane-space players. Takes a trail who, after reporting, isn't schmoozing with a coach or taking a break out by the division line, as sometimes is observed.
Did detect increased frequency of second space player cutting behind lower block player. Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally. When called we curbed it.
Clinicians, all of whom brought seasoned NCAA experience to the court, are having us closer to the FT'er as C. Not a bad thing. Much better look at that which C needs to surveil from halfway between the sideline and the nearer freethrow lane line or so than out on the sideline, which is where the indifferent reside during a freethrow, it seems.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm still just a little worried about those free throw shooters with a little "hitch" in their shot. If opponents are going to violate, it will be in the first period, until they all get used to his shooting routine. We, as officials, will have to really be on our toes in the early part of the game.

You'd have to consider the shooter and whether the motion is designed to draw the defense into a violation.

[Kansas Ref]

Using the "delayed-hitch" motion just before releasing the shot in the FT attempt is a time-worn stratagem used by players trying to "draw" a lane violation call. It's similar to in football, wherein either the QB will use long snap counts with lots of dramatic motions, head-bobbing, shoulder-faking, etc... to draw the 5 yards off sides penalty, or, when the offensive linemen use head bobs to pull the DT into the neutral zone.

So, regardless of the FT shooter's "intention" when using the hitch/delay motion in the act of FT shot attempt, if a lane violation occurred then we ought to decisively whistle it.

[bob jenkins]

If you think the FT shooter is faking -- that's a violation on the shooter.

If it's just a natural hitch -- that's a violation on the players on the lane.

Deciding which is which is our job.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you think the FT shooter is faking -- that's a violation on the shooter.

Even if the elastic band brings the ball back to the shooter?