Incredibly Embarrassing Moment

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

As long as you have started the 10 second count, the ball is at the disposal. What if the free throwing team stays in the huddle of a TO? The official will perform a 'resumption of play' procedure and place the ball on the free throw line.
I'm just saying......

And in the context of the OP, there would be no PC or TC in that case.

[Adam]

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

And I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for his citation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

And in the context of the OP, there would be no PC or TC in that case.

Interesting (?) that "disposal" creates TC during a throw-in, but not during a FT.

Oversight or intentional?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Interesting (?) that "disposal" creates TC during a throw-in, but not during a FT.

Oversight or intentional?

Possibly because "disposal" on a FT is going to lead to either a timeout or a violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

I recall the NFHS including something about contact between opponents in marked lane spaces being illegal in a recent POE. I and several others disagreed that any contact at all was illegal, but that is what the POE said. I thought that there was some equating of this "foul" to a violation too by the NFHS. Now I'll have to check and see what I can unearth.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I recall the NFHS including something about contact between opponents in marked lane spaces being illegal in a recent POE. I and several others disagreed that any contact at all was illegal, but that is what the POE said. I thought that there was some equating of this "foul" to a violation too by the NFHS. Now I'll have to check and see what I can unearth.

Nevada,
You might be referring to the NFHS 2013-15 Pre-Season Guide// Three-Person Mechanics. On page 4 there is a short article about using "preventive officiating to avoid potentially ugly situations during free throws. Keep player's hands off each other and know where you need to be looking to catch potential violations." Below that is a picture showing a "plane" between opponents along the lane with the caption, "Imagine a plane between hashmarks on the lane. Keeping an eye on illegal action on the lane lines can help clean up potentially ugly situations."
Although they did use the word "violations" I don't believe the interpretation in the picture meant reaching through the plane is a violation. I believe the POE was to clean up the unnecessary hand-to-hand contact that often occurs in order to avoid uglier situations.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And part g. of 9-1-3 says "a player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of the lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by the lane-space marks."

This is called just about never.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And part g. of 9-1-3 says "a player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of the lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by the lane-space marks."

Originally Posted by Dad

This is called just about never.

Really? That is pretty much the basic FT violation. I see it called.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? That is pretty much the basic FT violation. I see it called.

My bad. Around here it is just about never called. F/JV/V1A-3A you're lucky to see it called 1/10 times it happens. I'm not entirely sure why, but I just always pregame it so it doesn't happen.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dad

My bad. Around here it is just about never called. F/JV/V1A-3A you're lucky to see it called 1/10 times it happens. I'm not entirely sure why, but I just always pregame it so it doesn't happen.

How in the world do you prevent a free throw violation from being called in your pregame?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Smitty

How in the world do you prevent a free throw violation from being called in your pregame?

Other way around. I pregame we call it based on rule. The officials I work with, on average, are probably in their late 40s early 50s. Not sure if this is a reason or not.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dad

My bad. Around here it is just about never called. F/JV/V1A-3A you're lucky to see it called 1/10 times it happens. I'm not entirely sure why, but I just always pregame it so it doesn't happen.

Are you saying you pregame not calling what is, by rule, a violation?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you saying you pregame not calling what is, by rule, a violation?

I pregame calling it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? That is pretty much the basic FT violation. I see it called.

I've seldom called it, but I warn them to prevent a violation if I think it's going to be a problem. I don't know why it's a gender issue, but girls always want to lift the heel of their shoe over the mark on the lane line. It's never boys. It must have something to do with having two X chromosomes.