Free Throw Violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by HawkeyeCubP
So the task, essentially, is to define the "free throw semi-circle," as laid out in 9-1-1, "The try shall be attempted from within the free-throw semicircle and behind the free throw line."

Anyone?

Since JR doesn't care, and he is probably right not to, here's my opinion of what defines the FT semicircle:

1. RULE 1, SECTION 5 FREE-THROW LANE
ART. 1 . . . A free-throw lane, 12 feet wide measured to the outside of each lane boundary, and the semicircle with the free-throw line as a diameter, shall be marked at each end of the court with dimensions and markings as shown on the appended court diagram. All lines designating the free-throw lane, but not lane-space marks and neutral-zone marks, are part of the lane.

2. The court diagram on page 7 of the NFHS rules book says, "6' radius outside" in pointing to the FT semicircle.

=====================
Hence the point from which this radius must be swung is on the edge of the FT farther from the basket and directly in the midpoint of the lane.

So in order to give the shooter all 6 feet of that semicircle, which I believe we should, this means he must be allowed to go all the way to the outside of the semicircle line, and that therefore includes being allowed to step on this line.

[HawkeyeCubP]

I'm sold. Thanks Nevada. It makes sense to think of it as being the same as the center restraining circle, as in 1-3-1, with the line being part of the circle, or semicircle.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by HawkeyeCubP
I'm sold. Thanks Nevada. It makes sense to think of it as being the same as the center restraining circle, as in 1-3-1, with the line being part of the circle, or semicircle.

I couldn't understand Nevada's gobbdleygook above, which isn't that unusual. However.....if he's saying that it's not a violation for the FT shooter to step on the free throw line, then he's completely wrong.

NFHS rule 1-6 says that the free throw line is 2 inches wide,and is parallel to the end line with it's farthest edge being 15 feet from the plane of the backboard.

The free-throw lane line and the semi-circle are also defined in rule 1-5-1. They are defined in that rule as being separate entities.

Rule 9-1-7 says that it's a violation to 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".

As R1-6 says that the farthest edge of the free-throw line is always 15' from the plane of the backboard and is always parallel to the end line, then R9-1-7 is simply saying it's a violation to step over any part of that farthest, parallel edge of the free-throw line.

However, if Nevada isn't saying that, nevermind......

[Nevadaref]

I'm saying that it is a violation to step ON the FT line, but it is ok to step ON the FT semicircle line. It would however be a violation if the shooter stepped OVER/OUTSIDE OF the semicircle line.

What is contained in the above posts was my reasoning for why it is OK for the shooter to step ON, but not OVER, the FT semicircle.

That's all.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I'm saying that it is a violation to step ON the FT line, but it is ok to step ON the FT semicircle line. It would however be a violation if the shooter stepped OVER/OUTSIDE OF the semicircle line.

What is contained in the above posts was my reasoning for why it is OK for the shooter to step ON, but not OVER, the FT semicircle.

That's all.

Then I apologize profusely for mis-interpreting that post, and at the same time let it be known that I am also hanging my head in abject mortification at the same time for doubting your wisdom. I should certainly have known better, as it came from a personage renowned, nay revered, for his knowledge, acumen and impeccable taste. You are what every young official should aspire to be.

How can I make it up to you, my Liege? Do you have any doubters on this forum that have displeased you in the past? If so, may I offer my services to you to smite them mightily, in a verbal manner, so that they will be sore afraid and will henceforth bow down and avoid your regal presence.

Just say the word. It shall be done.

[lmeadski]

Varsity Game. A1 passes to A2 who does NOT control the pass (no one from the other team is pressing, they have fallen back into a zone in the front court). A2 gains control of the ball near the sideline (in front of the opponents bench) and steps ONTO the sideline. According to the posts I have heard here, this would be a NO CALL because no advantage was gained. Is this correct? And if not, how does this vary from the FT scenario?

[IdahoRef]

This is NOT a call that you want to hang your game on b/c he got no advantage, he didn't even break the intent of the rule. So try to avoid calling it. It has absolutely no effect on the game. If you're gonna call that, you should T the home team for not having an X in front of the scoring table. I mean that's literally how little this call is worth. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm a first year official and I'm trying to learn from you guys. So many of you refer to advantage/disadvantage when making a call. QUESTION: If you don't call a line violation for a free throw because there was "no advantage", then using the same reasoning, why would you call a kid stepping out of bounds with a toe? What advantage is there for someone stepping out of bounds by a quarter of an inch?

If I detect someone's foot stepping out of bounds, I call the violation. QUESTION: What am I missing here? I thought it was a simple call. If someone violates a rule, then isn't it a "violation"?

I appreciate learning from you all. Thanks!

[Rich]

Originally posted by lmeadski
Varsity Game. A1 passes to A2 who does NOT control the pass (no one from the other team is pressing, they have fallen back into a zone in the front court). A2 gains control of the ball near the sideline (in front of the opponents bench) and steps ONTO the sideline. According to the posts I have heard here, this would be a NO CALL because no advantage was gained. Is this correct? And if not, how does this vary from the FT scenario?

Straw man.

The FT shooter received the ball and stepped over the line while he was NOT shooting.

If you can 't see the difference between that and an OOB call I have concerns about your future as an official.

I wouldn't call this a violation in a million years. It's booger picking and being overly officious and wouldn't win you any gold stars from supervisors or clinicians. And your partner would probably puke on your shoes, too.

[Rich]

Originally posted by IdahoRef
This is NOT a call that you want to hang your game on b/c he got no advantage, he didn't even break the intent of the rule. So try to avoid calling it. It has absolutely no effect on the game. If you're gonna call that, you should T the home team for not having an X in front of the scoring table. I mean that's literally how little this call is worth.

I'm a first year official and I'm trying to learn from you guys. So many of you refer to advantage/disadvantage when making a call. QUESTION: If you don't call a line violation for a free throw because there was "no advantage", then using the same reasoning, why would you call a kid stepping out of bounds with a toe? What advantage is there for someone stepping out of bounds by a quarter of an inch?

If I detect someone's foot stepping out of bounds, I call the violation. QUESTION: What am I missing here? I thought it was a simple call. If someone violates a rule, then isn't it a "violation"?

I appreciate learning from you all. Thanks! [/B][/QUOTE]

It's a FT. The kid isn't trying to delay the game. How does calling this serve the GAME.

[lmeadski]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Straw man.

The FT shooter received the ball and stepped over the line while he was NOT shooting.

If you can 't see the difference between that and an OOB call I have concerns about your future as an official.

I wouldn't call this a violation in a million years. It's booger picking and being overly officious and wouldn't win you any gold stars from supervisors or clinicians. And your partner would probably puke on your shoes, too.

Rich,

I see the difference. However, I'm trying to determine how subjective or objective I need to be on calls. It seems as if you are more subjective. Rules are there for us to be objective. I am trying to discern WHEN to be more subjective with my calls. A concern about subjective calling is not becoming too arbritrary with the calls. Calling OOB, FT violation, traveling in one situation and possibly letting it go in another to me could also jeopardize my future as a ref. Regardless, I am learning. Thanks for the input.

[Rich]

Originally posted by lmeadski

Rich,

I see the difference. However, I'm trying to determine how subjective or objective I need to be on calls. It seems as if you are more subjective. Rules are there for us to be objective. I am trying to discern WHEN to be more subjective with my calls. A concern about subjective calling is not becoming too arbritrary with the calls. Calling OOB, FT violation, traveling in one situation and possibly letting it go in another to me could also jeopardize my future as a ref. Regardless, I am learning. Thanks for the input.

Most violations during play require no subjective thought. Travels are travels -- the problem with traveling is that many times traveling is called when it ISN'T traveling.

The only "live ball" violation I can think of that is very subjective in the real world is a 3 second violation. Few of these are called at higher level games -- I've called one all season (I work varsity level only).

Officiating, as you have noticed, is tough.

One thing that I still tell myself on the court is to let things come to me. Don't go looking to make calls. Fouls will come to you (and with a more relaxed attitude, you will pass on more and fit the adv/disadv philosophy better) and violations will happen. Don't go looking to be a "gotcha" official. Know the rules, yes, but think of the spirit of the rules. How does stepping over the FT line while not shooting violate the SPIRIT of the rule? Pass on things, but do it for the right reason.


And if a coach is screaming about this? Let him. Ignore him. The ball will be in play in another few seconds and he'll find something else to complain about. Or just stare at his pants.

Next week at this time my season will be over. Just when it's getting good.

--Rich

[IdahoRef]

After a night's rest, I wake up this morning and read a few posts and I must ask the question (please remember I'm just a new official seeking to be one who calls a good and fair game), if you do not call freethrow lane violations, then do you guys pass on calling some OOB violations?

I agree that there is no "advantage" having one's foot a 1/4 inch over the FT line. THEN do I no call when someone steps OOB by a 1/4 inch? (I see no advantage by a player getting away with this, but I have always called ALL OOB violations)

Am I making a mole hill a mountain?

I WANT NO PART in being a guy looking for the "letter of the law" violations. I want to serve both the kids, coaches, and parents and do a great job of officiating. ARE YOU GUYS TELLING ME ONE SHOULD NEVER CALL THIS VIOLATION? I appreciate you helping me get better. Thanks!

[Sirrefalot]

Originally posted by IdahoRef
After a night's rest, I wake up this morning and read a few posts and I must ask the question (please remember I'm just a new official seeking to be one who calls a good and fair game), if you do not call freethrow lane violations, then do you guys pass on calling some OOB violations?

I agree that there is no "advantage" having one's foot a 1/4 inch over the FT line. THEN do I no call when someone steps OOB by a 1/4 inch? (I see no advantage by a player getting away with this, but I have always called ALL OOB violations)

Am I making a mole hill a mountain?

I WANT NO PART in being a guy looking for the "letter of the law" violations. I want to serve both the kids, coaches, and parents and do a great job of officiating. ARE YOU GUYS TELLING ME ONE SHOULD NEVER CALL THIS VIOLATION? I appreciate you helping me get better. Thanks!

Well, I believe the original question has been a little twisted in the way that it was originally presented. The original scenerio was that the administering official delivers the ball to the free thow shooter who is over the line at that time and THEN backs up behind the line when the official calls a violation. (I would pass on that call) However, if after recieving the ball cleanly from the official and during the try for a goal he violates you must call that violation (50 percent of the time the opposing coach has a great vantage point.

[mj]

I'm not calling this.

Do you guys have a delayed violation when the defense on the bottom block has their heel in the air over the block?? I'm not calling that one either...

You guys decide, but it's worked for me so far.

[Sirrefalot]

Originally posted by mj
I'm not calling this.

Do you guys have a delayed violation when the defense on the bottom block has their heel in the air over the block?? I'm not calling that one either...

You guys decide, but it's worked for me so far.

Only have called that once... girl was up on her toes withalmost her entire foot over the block, after the first free throw I told her not to do that. She didn't say anything but looked me right in the eye and did it again on the second shot, only time I've called it....