Lane Violation & Foul

[The_Rookie]

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]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

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]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes..Entering FT semi-circle is what I meant

[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.