3 seconds interpretation

[thedewed]

college and hs. thought I knew this but want to be sure. always thought both feet need to be out for offensive player not to be in the lane...one in one out you are still in. but what if the player with the foot that is 'in' lifts that foot, so that he then has no part of his body in the lane (that is the way the rule reads). I've never thought of it before . If the foot is over the lane, but not touching it, doesn't seem like in strict interpretation of the language that he is in the lane. similarly, if a player's arm is over the lane, but not touching it, you wouldn't say he was in the lane, so have a body part over the lane, breaking the plane of the lane line, wouldn't seem to be enough, unless i'm missing a case illustration, and I haven't looked to carefully. thoughts? can a play straddle the line, lift the inside foot and thereby start the 3 clock over?

[Adam]

Specifically mentioned in the rules that both feet must set down outside the lane to restart the count.

That's the rule, anyway.

[BillyMac]

The intent of the three-second rule is to not allow an offensive player in the lane to gain an advantage. There is no three-second count between the release of a shot, and the control of a rebound, at which time a new count starts. There is no three-second count during a throwin. There is no three-second count while the ball is in the backcourt. There is a three-second count during an interrupted dribble. There is a three-second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane, and one foot outside of the lane, and the three-second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane. It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation. Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in, or moves immediately to try for goal.

[Camron Rust]

As Adam said, it is specifically mentioned.

While it is slightly different, a player is considered in the lane during a FT if any part of their leg/foot breaks the plane regardless of whether it touches or not. Breaking the plane with any other body part doesn't put a player in the lane unless they touch the floor in the lane.

For 3 seconds, it is similar. The point of the restriction is to prevent a large/tall player from skirting the 3-second rule by effectively staying in the lane. If they get both feet outside the boundary, it isn't much more to touch.

Not sure why the difference in the two situations. They could have made them both the same to keep the concept simpler.

[BigCat]

If a guy is camped in lane or dribbles in and holds it for 3, 4 or 5, then passes out...call it. Don't look for the player with one foot in and one out. He's usually not a threat. This isn't something we want to eyeball and watch like a hawk. Count etc. you'll know when it needs to be called.

And I know your just asking a question. Just adding a thought. Tgx

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BigCat

If a guy is camped in lane or dribbles in and holds it for 3, 4 or 5, then passes out...call it. Don't look for the player with one foot in and one out. He's usually not a threat. This isn't something we want to eyeball and watch like a hawk. Count etc. you'll know when it needs to be called.

And I know your just asking a question. Just adding a thought. Tgx

I would add however a post player that doesn't fully leave and just lift his foot and puts it back down won't get this courtesy from me. I'm calling the violation.

[thedewed]

thanks thought so, but had someone claiming otherwise and a cursory review of the book didn't find that language.

Not officiating right now, but I have noticed at D1 level that the freedom of movement emphasis seems to actually be having an impact on the way the players play. Interesting development.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by thedewed

thanks thought so, but had someone claiming otherwise and a cursory review of the book didn't find that language.

Not officiating right now, but I have noticed at D1 level that the freedom of movement emphasis seems to actually be having an impact on the way the players play. Interesting development.

That's because they made it clear, if you want to work these games you will make these calls.

[Rob1968]

Case Book 9.7.2 . . . The count goes on since merely lifting the foot from the restricted space is interpreted as an attempt to evade the rule and avoid its purpose. . .