I see players leaning in before the shot hits the rim in
high school. How far over the line do you let them lean before it's called? They don't actually touch the floor but
it seems to be a head start.

There is no rule saying that a player in a marked lane space can't "lean in". There is no rules basis to ever call a violation for doing so- no matter how far they may be leaning in.

NFHS Rule 9-1-9;

A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any edge of the space (12 inches by 36 inches) designated by a neutral zone.

Note: The restrictions in Articles 6 through 9 apply until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

Johnny, is either of the player's feet beyond the vertical plane of line when they're standing behind the line and leaning in?

It might be a good idea to get your local rule interpreter to explain that rule to you.

I do not know. The original post did not state what was leaning in. I only wrote the rule for reference. The rule seems to pertain to feet and not a players upper body.

The rule seems to pertain to feet and not a players upper body.
[/B][/QUOTE]Exactly. That's why the rule you cited isn't relevant to a player "leaning in".

Also, a player actually touching the lane is in the lane even if the feet are out of the lane...cover the case where the lean too far and fall down.

So Camron, Are you saying that this constitutes a FT violation? If so, I don't interpret it that way. I concede that you certainly have a case to argue, but I argue for the opposite side.

Does a player in a marked lane space who keeps his feet in their proper location, but bends down and puts his hand on the floor inside the lane violate any of the provisions of 9-1?

Art. 5 Is putting a hand on the floor in the lane disconcertion?
I doubt it.

Art. 6 Is it leaving a marked lane space?
I don't think so.

Art. 9 ...may not have either foot beyond... blah, blah... Seems to only restrict the feet, not the hands/arms, etc.

I just can't find any rule that is being violated. I also checked the specific language of 4-35 and 9-7.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Aug 9th, 2005 at 06:28 AM]

Is a player not located where they're touching? If touching in the lane, are they not in the lane? I had thought so, but on a re-reading of the rules on player location, it appears that this <em>may</em> not be true. Would you consider a player in the lane (not during a FT) when they fall such that they're sitting in the lane with the ball but their feet are outside the lane?

Yes, it is my belief that a player sitting in the lane with his feet outside the lane is to be considered inside the FT lane and thus is subject to the 3 second violation.
But I'm happy to see you are giving due consideration to the fact that 9-7-2 says, "one foot" and 4-35 doesn't mention the FT lane at all. I happen to believe that the latter is an oversight.

However, since the above situation is not during a FT it doesn't cause a conflict, with my interpretation of the FT violation rules.

My opinion hinges on a subtle point.
It has to do with the very specific wording of the FT rules. During a FT the rules state where the players may or must BE, not where they may NOT BE. (Hamlet allusion unintended!) The FT alignment rules are written in a permissive sense, not a prohibitive one.

The result of this construction is that there is NO violation for being IN the FT lane prior to the ball hitting the backboard or ring. There are only violations for LEAVING a marked lane space prior to that time or breaking the vertical plane of the boundaries of that marked lane space with a FOOT. Therefore, officials must focus their judgment on whether or not the player has left the marked lane space or broken its plane, not whether or not he is inside the FT lane. Being inside or outside the FT lane is just not relevant during a FT.

Consequently, this allows a paradoxical situation in which a player may be considered to be IN THE LANE because he is physically touching the lane (with his hand for example), but at the same time the player has not left the marked lane space OUTSIDE OF THE LANE (since he is still standing within that space). Also, since the restrictions are solely directed at where his feet are, he has not violated 9-1-9.

For a player who loses his balance and falls into the lane, catching himself in the push-up position, while his feet remain outside of the lane in the marked lane space, I believe that there is ONLY ONE violation that could CORRECTLY be called (and I would call it): 9-1-5 disconcertion

Just my warped, legalistic opinion. :)

Do the Rules say what it means to be in a marked lane space?
 

Do they, for example, indicated some limit as to how far towards the sideline a player can be - that is, steps back, but between the lane markings - from the border of the lane running court-length-wise?

When, occasionally, some clown, or fool, decides to back up a step, what do you do?

I tell the player to move up to the line. Before the shooter shoots. So it isn't disconcerting.

Same thing with when a player squats down to his/her haunches. "Up, please." And don't wait till the shooter begins to shoot - disconcertion.

So, all this being said - while the way you characterize the rules is correct - while do you feel bound by such shoddy workmanship? So they didn't carefully characterize the situation? We can't have people falling (feet still in place) in the lane, even after the shot has been released and before it hits, no?

"During a FT the rules state where the players may or must BE, not where they may NOT BE. (Hamlet allusion unintended!) The FT alignment rules are written in a permissive sense, not a prohibitive one." But moving a foot into the lane is specifically enjoined. They just forgot to fill in all the oddball possible examples.

Re: Do the Rules say what it means to be in a marked lane space?
 

1)Do they, for example, indicated some limit as to how far towards the sideline a player can be - that is, steps back, but between the lane markings - from the border of the lane running court-length-wise?

2)When, occasionally, some clown, or fool, decides to back up a step, what do you do?

3)I tell the player to move up to the line. Before the shooter shoots. So it isn't disconcerting.

4)Same thing with when a player squats down to his/her haunches. "Up, please." And don't wait till the shooter begins to shoot - disconcertion.



[/B][/QUOTE]1)If by "they", you mean the rulesmakers,then yes, there sureashell is a rule in place laying out the restrictions as to how far a player along the lane can step back. The applicable rules are NFHS R1-5-2, 9-1-6 and 9-1-9.

2)Why would you call a player a "clown" or a "fool" for doing something that is probably completely legal by rule? To answer your question, I call it as per the applicable rule(see #1). It could be a violation. It could be legal. It depends on how big the step actually is. A normal step back from the line is always legal.

3) You would call "disconcertion" on a player in a marked lane space if he was just standing a step back from the lane line and not doing anything else? Under what rule? What would you do if a player refused to move up that step to the lane line- seeing that there is NO rule saying that he has to do so? Please let me know when you're gonna call that one. I'd love to be there. I'd also love to hear your explanation for that call later too.

4) Please cite a rule- any rule- that says a player <b>has</b> to assume any particular position in a marked lane space. A player can sit facing the sideline if he wants, as long as he's not doing anything else that might be disconcerting to the FT shooter.

Just a little advice. Feel free to ignore it. Fwiw,it's usually not wise to answer rules questions when you don't know the answers.

I'm tending to agree with your interpretation here, Nevada (although I'd lean heavily toward calling disconcertion in these type situations), however, I want to pose a hypothetical question.

A1 is shooting FT's, and B1 is along the lane line. B1 is also (for some odd reason) a world champion gymnast. B1 plants his hands in the lane, moves his body forward, and does a horizontal handstand (supporting his body horizontally) with his feet above the marked lane space (not penetrating the plane).

If there were no prohibition for disconcertion, would you call this a violation?

I would say that it depends if he's wearing those pants with the stirrups around his feet.

Re: Re: Do the Rules say what it means to be in a marked lane space?
 

----------


Thanks, 1-5-2. I am lazy. It makes my point. Players are not to be backing up out of the stall. And certainly not to be moving up to the starting gate, or getting up off their haunches, while the shooter is shooting. That's disconcerting . . .

Having 1st class intuition (a learned characteristic), no, I don't call disconcertion of a player standing 1 small step back and not moving. Doing that, standing back a step, stock still, is kinda rare, wouldn't yah say. Unless you're part of a post-shot pick play.

Finally, "A player can sit facing the sideline if he wants, as long as he's not doing anything else that might be disconcerting to the FT shooter." Doing what you describe is inherently disconcerting, and will get the floor dangerously wet in some cases.

You dah man
 

Too funny!

Re: Re: Re: Do the Rules say what it means to be in a marked lane space?
 

Well, all I can really say to all that is....OmiGod. :rolleyes:

Ok, my face is all red. Have I been doing it wrong all these years? I understand all the issues regarding who's in which space, the size of each space, arms spread out in front of the other player (and all the associated "swimming" motions, etc.), and so on. I've known players can lean into the lane, but in a situation where a player leans too far, loses balance and touches the floor with their hand in the lane, I have always called the violation, and I have always seen that violation called. Am I responsible for perpetuating one of those basketball "myths"? You know, the myth about the violation actually being "leaving the space too early" as opposed to "entering the lane too early". I know I am going to have a tough time explaining to the other coach why I didn't wave off the made free throw when one of the shooter's teammates had both their hands on the floor in the lane, while of course their feet were comfortably still within that lane space.

ROTFLMAO!!

I would hypothetically be inclined to applaud his athletic prowess. :)

Jeff,
JR and I have gone to great lengths and supplied specific rule citations in an effort to let you know what exactly is and what is not legal during FTs. If you choose to ignore our advice that is up to you.

However, while in my opinion the action described above is not a FT violation, nor is it inherently disconcerting to the FT shooter, I think that you have a good case for disallowing it if you approach it as a safety issue.

I don't believe that the floor getting wet is weighty enough to win the case, but contending that the player is positioning himself in such a way that he is quite likely to be stepped on, which both puts himself in danger and poses a danger to the player who will step on him while looking up at the ball while attempting to rebound (e.g. turned ankle), gives you good reason to invoke the NFHS principle on player safety.

So my advice to you is that if you tell a player that he can't sit, then say it is a safety issue. The NFHS has stated many times that player safety is one of their top priorities.

Best wishes.

However, while in my opinion the action described above is not a FT violation, nor is it inherently disconcerting to the FT shooter, I think that you have a good case for disallowing it if you approach it as a <font color = red>safety issue</font>.

[/B][/QUOTE]Sitting on the floor is unsafe?

Why? Do you think he'll fall off?

Lah me!

Just let me know when you guys are gonna call that one. I wanna sell tickets.

Sitting on the floor is unsafe?

Why? Do you think he'll fall off?

Lah me!

Just let me know when you guys are gonna call that one. I wanna sell tickets. [/B][/QUOTE]

Doing what you describe is inherently disconcerting, and will get the floor dangerously wet in some cases.

Doing what you describe is inherently disconcerting, and will get the floor dangerously wet in some cases.
[/B][/QUOTE]WOW! Disconcerting <b>and</b> dangerous?

If I were you, I'd call a "T" on that play!

<font size = -4>If I were me, I wouldn't call anything. Ever.</font>

*i dont think that there is a rule against leaning in "too far"...but i dont know*

Ok, sorry to bring this up again, but I really am confused about 9-1-9. I understand the part about the feet of the player along the lane cannot be "beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, etc." This is to allow for players leaning in, but still being considered in their lane space. But, in the extreme and unlikely example of, say a player doing push-ups in the lane - as long as their feet are within their lane space, even though their hands are in the middle of the lane, surely you aren't saying that's legal? (If you clear this up for me I promise I won't call you Shirley anymore.) Just to eliminate the "disconcertion" possibility, let's say it's a teammate of the freethrower, and the free throw is made. Have I been missing something all these years? Or is it just because it's Monday and I'm having a brain fart not figuring out the answer...

No, you haven't been missing anything ... What is the basis for your lane violation call, 9-1-6?

If you believe that the teammate hasn't left his marked lane space, then there is no violation to call.

There is a pretty strong case to be made that a foot must be out of the space to constitute leaving, since the rules specifically restrict the feet.

Don't worry, it's probably not the only thing you've been missing. :)

I just enjoy finding loopholes in the rules. This seems to be one of them. The NFHS will probably issue an interp to close this one and ruin my fun.

They did that with the automatic FT violation for a team which only has one player remaining and can't fill both bottom spots a year or so ago. I had cooked up a way for the team that was behind to prevent losing by continually missing the FT. A violation would have to be called without any time running off the clock on every try, thus the game would never end!

I still have my hopping on one foot play though. Picture a dribbler in the backcourt who begins to hop on one foot. This dribbler then hops into the frontcourt. After reaching the FT line, the player turns around and proceeds into the backcourt again. Since only one foot ever touched in the frontcourt, I hope you were still continuing your ten-second count!

Don't I know it. I'm just trying to get the list down to under two pages, though. :rolleyes:

Ok, I feel a little better that it's just a loophole in the way the rule is worded. But, somehow, this is going to added to my list of "Top 10 Things to Do During My Last Season of Refereeing":

#10 - Don't call the violation on the player doing push-ups in the lane. "But coach, his feet never left the lane space!"
#9 - Call the 10-sec. backcourt violation on that annoying hopping player driving to the lane for a layup.
#8 - Call the male coaches Prince and the female coaches Princess.
(Any suggestions on #7 thru #1?)

:D

#7 T your partner. Give each team one FT and then use the AP arrow to determine who gets the ball.
#6 Tell that complaining coach that he should be employing a 1-3-1 trapping defense and that they need to get #32 open on the left wing for a jumper. Follow it up by telling him that since he is officiating, you have decided to coach.
#5 Actually call a multiple foul.
#4 Call a blarge by YOURSELF. The signal for this is one hand behind your head, the other one goes on your hip. Otherwise known as the "I'm a little teapot" signal.
#3 Enforce the uniform rules listed in 3-4 to the letter.
T every violation.
#2 You take one coach's box and your partner takes the other. The two of you work the whole game from there, switching on every foul, of course. Tell the coaches that you have come to agree that they really can see everything perfectly from there, so clearly it must be the best location from which to officiate.
#1 On your way off the floor, give the winning coach a big hug and a kiss!

ROTHFLMAO!

I'm a little (maybe too) intrigued by #7...can I try that out before my last season?...

So a player that leaves his feet in the proper lane space and falls into the key (push up) has not left his lane space and this should NOT be a violation?

JR, Nevada, I'd like to sell tickets to that one! I can't imagine a single person in the gym that would say "Yep, the referee is correct. That is okay/legal."

Does a player leave the court if he is doing push-ups across the Out Of Bounds line? Can a player scoot up to the free throw line extended and do push-ups across that imaginary line while the shooter is making his free throw attempt? How about doing push-ups with his hands inside the semi-circle and feet outside the 3-point line? How about lying on his back inside the semi-circle and kicking his feet in the air outside the circle?

You know, most playes spend just about all of their time during the game standing on two feet (well, not touching anything else to the floor [hands/butt/etc.]), so I'm thinking that if play is basically stopped (like during a free throw attempt), anything besides standing on two feet watching the shooter and the ball/rebound has a good chance of being disconcerting, if nothing else.

Touching in the lane is generally accepted as a violation and I believe should rightfully be called. Can the shooter fall into the lane and catch himself in a push-up position? Per Rule 9, that would be okay too.

You know, you might get away with it during a game but if it was the game winning shot... now you're going to have to really sell the no call. Somebody is going to be screaming. I guess you could always say... "Well, I didn't call it earlier."

I'll be calling it as a violation.

Geeze, Tony, I hope that the "JR" you are referring to is someone else other than me. I certainly don't want to be associated with that nonsense either. :)

Tickets are sold to many games where not a single person in the gym has said, "Yep, the referee is correct. That is okay/legal." ;)

Anyway, I feel exactly the way you do - I will also call this a violation. But, I do understand Nevada's position - as the rule is written, it would not be a violation. There is nothing in the rules on FT's that would make this a violation. I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule is to allow the leaning, so we don't have to watch for whether a player's hand, or face, or lock of hair has broken the plane of the lane space. We just need to watch the feet. But the unintended consequence is there is no language in place about touching the lane directly, or being "in the lane" during a FT. Your comparison to being OOB doesn't work, because there is specific language in place - rule 7-1. This is just Nevada's "warped, legalistic opinion" on a possible loophole. I feel better that I haven't been calling this wrong all these years (well, at least this specific item), and discussions like this do force me to read the rules much more carefully, rather than skim over things that I think are "obvious".

Most of my games are like that - tickets are sold, but there's not a single person in the gym.

:p

Isn't there a rule about "shall not enter or leave a lane space?" Doesn't touching the lane mean that the player has left the lane space?

Ooops
 

Sorry, JR; I misunderstood your position. I read this thread in one fell swoop and several comments coagulated together (a bloody mess).

Nevada is still warped!
:D

P.S. Not only would I sell tickets, I would willingly BUY a ticket to see either one of you work a game.

That's where all the fun and frivolity has ensued. You could say, as long as his feet are still in the space, that he hasn't left. And, he certainly was not in the space and now entering it. He's just in "more" than that space. And, the biggest issue is 9-1-9 that says only the feet can't be beyond the lane space marks. It doesn't say anything about being "in the lane", or "touching" the lane, etc. as far as free throws are concerned.

Of course, these are good points to argue if I was on the debate team in school. (I didn't have time for the debate team; chess club and science club took up too much time :rolleyes: ) But realistically, I won't consider making that call until my last season.

Oh, it would be your last season alright. You could take that one to the bank.

I know, that's why I'm making that list.

Wanna buy a ticket? :p

I know, that's why I'm making that list.

Wanna buy a ticket? :p [/B][/QUOTE]I heard that the Cubs sold tickets to Kerry Woods' shoulder surgery today.

They're thinking of making it an annual event.

But, a person is OOB if touoching OOB, not "all the way" OOB. And, a person is in the two-point area (aka "out of the three-point area") when touching the two-point area, not all the way in the two point area. Similarly with the lane (three seconds), back court, etc. I don't think it's a stretch to say the person is out of the lane space when touching the floor outside the lane space.

Quote:

And, the biggest issue is 9-1-9 that says only the feet can't be beyond the lane space marks.

That's just an additional requirement. It has nothing to do with touching the floor outside the lane space. Don't reach with the foot, OR don't touch with any other body part -- do either one and you've violated.

Remember, I agree with you in practice. (Well, at least until my final year.) It's just interesting to note in all of your examples, such as OOB, 3-pt. vs. 2-pt. shots, etc., there is something specifically mentioned in the rules about what is in or out. For OOB, the rule says, "the player", not just a specific body part. However, in this single case of the FT, the player as a whole isn't mentioned, neither is "the lane"; only the fact that the feet can't break the plane of the lane line. It also doesn't say it's an additional requirement.

Again, I think we all agree we should call the violation. But, as JR is so fond of saying, "Can you give me the specific rule citation to back it up?" (I knew I could find a way to drag him into it...)

I used to think so but now I wonder. There is a rule that declares where a player is located when they're touching two areas. It covered inbounds/OOB, 2-point/3-point, and frontcourt/backcourt. It doesn't mention the lane.

Re: OOB and 3-point lines....there is a rule that say a plyaer touching both in/out is out....likewise for 3 vs. 2...it's a 2.

There is no specification for the others.