The curved toe of the shoe.

[mick]

In another thread, BigGref wrote: "Also wondered if anyone has changed a 2 to a 3. I don't see it happening but if T has a foot on the line in a gray area of coverage and I see wood b/t shoes and line, we got a situation."

That reminded me of the following.

T'other night, I had a free-throw shooter whose shoe (resting on the floor) was not touching the line, but was curved above the plane of the FT line, and penetrating the plane of the line by 3/4".

I didn't call a violation, ... but a fan did.

[Smitty]

If the free throw shooter can look straight down and see the tip of his shoe is over that free throw line, he's over the free throw line and it should be a violation. Are we supposed to figure out where his toes are inside his shoes?

[CYO Butch]

Is his hand allowed over the line? How about his knee? How about his stomach? How about his elbow? Is just being over the line and not touching anything a violation?

[Smitty]

So in other words, instead of standing and watching the free thrower, I should be laying on the floor seeing where the bottom of the shoe actually is touching the floor and where it starts to curve, sort of like a wrestling official looking for a pin? Come on, it's simple..the foot is the thing that can't be over the line. The foot includes the shoe. This is a no brainer.

[Hawks Coach]

Your FT shooter is shooting these FTs and not finishing on her toes? I have a hard time imagining the toe of the shoe being over the line and never touching it during the FT, but I guess it could happen.

Still sounds like a violation to me, just like on a lane space. Don't have to touch it, a foot over the plane of the lane space is enough to violate.

[Smitty]

Not only that, but you're also giving a ton of benefit of doubt to the free thrower that they know exactly where the bottom of their shoe is touching the floor and where it starts to curve.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Smitty
Not only that, but you're also giving a ton of benefit of doubt to the free thrower that they know exactly where the bottom of their shoe is touching the floor and where it starts to curve.

I don't really care about that, but any part of the foot in the air over a lane boundary on a FT is a violation. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe I am missing something.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

I don't really care about that, but any part of the foot in the air over a lane boundary on a FT is a violation. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe I am missing something.

You're correct coach. Over the line is the same as on the line when it comes to the FT lane. A foot may not break the plane of the lane before the shot contacts the rim. This is not true, however, for any other body part. If this were not the case, you'd see the running jump shot on the FT to get closer but in the air before shooting.

[ref18]

Fed Rule 9-1-7

"The free thower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket or the free-throw semicircle line."

I think this answers the question. Its a Violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mick
In another thread, BigGref wrote: "Also wondered if anyone has changed a 2 to a 3. I don't see it happening but if T has a foot on the line in a gray area of coverage and I see wood b/t shoes and line, we got a situation."

That reminded me of the following.

T'other night, I had a free-throw shooter whose shoe (resting on the floor) was not touching the line, but was curved above the plane of the FT line, and penetrating the plane of the line by 3/4".

I didn't call a violation, ... but a fan did.

By rule, yes, it's a violation.

Would I call it. Not likely (maybe if I really didn't like the team and it was my last game anyway! --Note to BBCoach -- that was a joke; please don't disrespect me for making that comment). I'm hard-pressed to see how it affects either the shot or the rebound.