Free Throw Violation

[force39]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by johnny1784

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.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by johnny1784
[/B]

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".

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
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]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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 may 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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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 may 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.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
[/B]

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 has 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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Just my warped, legalistic opinion.

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?

[ChrisSportsFan]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

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.

[assignmentmaker]

----------

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

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.