Lane Violation & Foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

The OP says that B1 leaves on the release. It's important to note that this by itself is not a violation. We're assuming that B1 entered the FT semi-circle while she was still restricted from doing so, but this is not expressly stated.

So, this could be either a violation followed by a personal foul, or simply a personal foul.

Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.

And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.



And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.



Peace

I assumed the same thing. Just clarifying for purposes of newer officials to whom this may not be so obvious.

In terms of a foul on a FT shooter without a violation first, I'm considering the situation where a player in a marked lane space positions himself in front of the FT shooter, and then backs them down after the ball hits the rim. Or something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes that is true, but the rule did not change. So leaving your lane space on the release is not a violation and the rule was changed last year. I am going to assume that he knows this already. The only way this would be a violation is based on the new rule of entering the semi-circle, as this is what the new rule addresses.

And I do not know how you would have a foul on a FT shooter without causing a violation first. I guess if the FT shooter is leaning over the line maybe but not likely. Or if the FT restrictions have ended and then the FT shooter enters the lane and is then fouled. But that sounds like a for the purposes of the new rule application.

Peace

I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.

What about the hand breaking the plane and touches floor..Lane Violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

What about the hand breaking the plane and touches floor..Lane Violation?

Yes -- but that's NOT what Adam said. You added an additional condition.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes -- but that's NOT what Adam said. You added an additional condition.

DA Floor DA Floor

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not looking at the rule, but with other lane violations, breaking the plane with anything but the foot is not a violation, so it would be possible for a foul to occur without a lane violation. Not common, but possible.

Does it say only feet? I am not seeing that in the rule. Now I agree that likely that would be the best way to call the violations, but I could see someone using their bent over body to break the plane and not touch with their feet first.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does it say only feet? I am not seeing that in the rule. Now I agree that likely that would be the best way to call the violations, but I could see someone using their bent over body to break the plane and not touch with their feet first.

Peace

I'd have to see how the rule is written, but for players along the lane lines (and the FT shooter, if I remember correctly), it's feet over or contact with the floor. Hands and hips across plane don't violate the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd have to see how the rule is written, but for players along the lane lines (and the FT shooter, if I remember correctly), it's feet over or contact with the floor. Hands and hips across plane don't violate the rule.

I thought the interpretation was breaking the plane not necessarily with your feet , but we might need a clarification.

Peace

[BigCat]

Feet cannot break the plane of any lane boundary. Other parts cannot touch floor.

[deecee]

I'm glad that something that so rarely happens is getting so much attention. Most officials should focus on getting whats obvious right and being consistent and that will improve their games way more than focusing on this once in a decade occurrences (which most likely are during off season AAU or freshman games).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I thought the interpretation was breaking the plane not necessarily with your feet , but we might need a clarification.

For "regular" free throw violations, it is, indeed, the feet and the boundary plane (as well as the touch in the lane, which was added a few years ago as a casebook play). Since the switch to the "release", the violation for crossing the free throw line by a "rebounder" has never been clarified by the NFHS.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For "regular" free throw violations, it is, indeed, the feet and the boundary plane (as well as the touch in the lane, which was added a few years ago as a casebook play). Since the switch to the "release", the violation for crossing the free throw line by a "rebounder" has never been clarified by the NFHS.

With that in mind, everyone take a look at Freddy's third video. I don't think the defender's feet cross the free-throw line before the restrictions end, but her butt sure does, and there IS a foul there (not disputing that). So....is there also a delayed violation here? I agree with Billy; the new rule is not clear and may need a little editing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk