Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Also, a player actually touching the lane is in the lane even if the feet are out of the lane...cover the case where the lean too far and fall down.
|
So Camron, Are you saying that this constitutes a FT violation? If so, I don't interpret it that way. I concede that you certainly have a case to argue, but I argue for the opposite side.
Does a player in a marked lane space who keeps his feet in their proper location, but bends down and puts his hand on the floor inside the lane violate any of the provisions of 9-1?
Art. 5 Is putting a hand on the floor in the lane disconcertion?
I doubt it.
Art. 6 Is it leaving a marked lane space?
I don't think so.
Art. 9 ...may not have either foot beyond... blah, blah... Seems to only restrict the feet, not the hands/arms, etc.
I just can't find any rule that is being violated. I also checked the specific language of 4-35 and 9-7.
[Edited by Nevadaref on Aug 9th, 2005 at 06:28 AM]
|
Is a player not located where they're touching? If touching in the lane, are they not in the lane? I had thought so, but on a re-reading of the rules on player location, it appears that this may not be true. Would you consider a player in the lane (not during a FT) when they fall such that they're sitting in the lane with the ball but their feet are outside the lane?
|
Yes, it is my belief that a player sitting in the lane with his feet outside the lane is to be considered inside the FT lane and thus is subject to the 3 second violation.
But I'm happy to see you are giving due consideration to the fact that 9-7-2 says, "one foot" and 4-35 doesn't mention the FT lane at all. I happen to believe that the latter is an oversight.
However, since the above situation is not during a FT it doesn't cause a conflict, with my interpretation of the FT violation rules.
My opinion hinges on a subtle point.
It has to do with the very specific wording of the FT rules. During a FT the rules state where the players may or must BE, not where they may NOT BE. (Hamlet allusion unintended!) The FT alignment rules are written in a permissive sense, not a prohibitive one.
The result of this construction is that there is NO violation for being IN the FT lane prior to the ball hitting the backboard or ring. There are only violations for LEAVING a marked lane space prior to that time or breaking the vertical plane of the boundaries of that marked lane space with a FOOT. Therefore, officials must focus their judgment on whether or not the player has left the marked lane space or broken its plane, not whether or not he is inside the FT lane. Being inside or outside the FT lane is just not relevant during a FT.
Consequently, this allows a paradoxical situation in which a player may be considered to be IN THE LANE because he is physically touching the lane (with his hand for example), but at the same time the player has not left the marked lane space OUTSIDE OF THE LANE (since he is still standing within that space). Also, since the restrictions are solely directed at where his feet are, he has not violated 9-1-9.
For a player who loses his balance and falls into the lane, catching himself in the push-up position, while his feet remain outside of the lane in the marked lane space, I believe that there is ONLY ONE violation that could CORRECTLY be called (and I would call it): 9-1-5 disconcertion
Just my warped, legalistic opinion.
