The Official Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Lane Violation & Foul (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/101709-lane-violation-foul.html)

The_Rookie Sat Oct 08, 2016 05:58pm
Lane Violation & Foul
 
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?

JRutledge Sat Oct 08, 2016 06:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991577)
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?
Several factors we would need to know.

Are there FTs left in the sequence? If there are you have to shoot those at this point.

Did the FT on the foul go in the basket? If so then you would not shoot the FT again.

But the bottom line, you have to enforce each penalties in the order they occur. But all those other things matter to the enforcement of this penalty.

Peace

bob jenkins Sat Oct 08, 2016 09:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991577)
A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 leaves her lane spot on the release to box out A1. The box out by B1 results in a foul called because B1 knocked A1 to the ground.

What is the correct way to handle a lane violation and a foul?
It's both a violation AND a foul. Penalize in the order they occurred -- violation THEN foul.

Camron Rust Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 991585)
It's both a violation AND a foul. Penalize in the order they occurred -- violation THEN foul.
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?

bob jenkins Sun Oct 09, 2016 08:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 991586)
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?
I think this is "not covered." So, as many as are called for in 2-3.

I'm calling it intentional -- two FTs and the ball. If it ever really happens, there is probably a T coming somewhere, too.

just another ref Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 991586)
And if the foul occurs while the FT shooter is in the act of shooting the FT how many shots do you award?
A foul against a player in the act of shooting a FT would still, by definition, be a common foul, would it not?

BigCat Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 991594)
A foul against a player in the act of shooting a FT would still, by definition, be a common foul, would it not?
If you call it intentional or flagrant it would not be a common foul. (It would be intentional or flagrant) Otherwise, yes. We have gone through this before and I think that was the answer.

crosscountry55 Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:08am
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.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adam Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:00am
Technically, you could have a foul followed by the violation.

The odds of having a foul in the act of shooting are pretty slim if the defender leaves after the release.

JRutledge Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 991598)
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 Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991631)
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 Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 991631)
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 Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:51pm
Yes..Entering FT semi-circle is what I meant:)

The_Rookie Mon Oct 10, 2016 02:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 991646)
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 Mon Oct 10, 2016 03:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 991648)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10pm.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1