Lane Violation?

BillyMac

Jurassic Referee wrote
The play was always called that way anyway.

You're correct. That's the way all of us would have called it in a real game, in real time. But I do remember some discussion, I believe on this Forum, if the "pushup" in the lane, by the book, was, or wasn't, a violation.

BktBallRef

Jurassic Referee wrote
Go into your old files and check the 2009-10 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes that were initially posted on the FED website. Under " 2009-10 NFHS MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES" you will find:

9-1-3d Clarified that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space(36 inches by 36 inches).

It was a CLARIFICATION under NFHS rules, as Camron said.

I lent that year's rulebook out, but I'd bet that's how it shows up at the front in the new rules changes too. Of course I don't have a clue what IAABO printed. Maybe they were making up their own rules again. 😃

OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark!

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. 😎

Adam

Jurassic Referee wrote
I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

I'll agree that the rule was always supposed to be the same as it is now, so calling the change a clarification makes sense.

But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

Adam

BadNewsRef wrote
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool:

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Jurassic Referee

Snaqwells wrote
But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

OK, Randy. 🙄

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

mbyron

Jurassic Referee wrote
And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

Oh, you're not alone. 🙂

Raymond

Snaqwells wrote
Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

Adam

Jurassic Referee wrote
OK, Randy. 🙄

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

I appreciate your indulgence, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not referring to the hand in the lane rule, I agree that the rule has always been called that way. I was wrong before.

I'm referring to the change that requires at least one foot to be "near" the lane. They were "clarified" the same year, but one was clearly a change and one was clearly a clarification.

Adam

BadNewsRef wrote
Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

Raymond

Snaqwells wrote
How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

I'm out of town on business so no access to my NFHS rule books. If you can quote me the 10-second rule I can elaborate.

Adam

paraphrased wrote
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Team control and BC status are required for a count.

tref

Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Snaqwells wrote
Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established.

Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended.

Adam

tref wrote
Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established.

Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended.

Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

tref

Snaqwells wrote
Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

True! If it could only be the same across the board 🙁

College officials:
Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control?

Camron Rust

BadNewsRef wrote
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool:

It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is. 🙄

Raymond

Snaqwells wrote
Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I would like for them to actually use the phrases "Team Control" and "Back Court Status".

We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule.

Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV.

rockyroad

tref wrote
True! If it could only be the same across the board 🙁

College officials:
Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control?

Well, since there is no 10 second count in NCAAW, we don't have to worry about it.

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is. :rolleyes:

Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

tref

rockyroad wrote
Well, since there is no 10 second count in NCAAW, we don't have to worry about it.

🙂

Correction: NCAAM Officials, when do you begin your 10 second count?

« Previous Page Next Page »