Watching boys Varsity game last night and the official hands the ball to our opponent for a free throw. Player takes a couple of dribbles , gets ready to shoot and the official blows the whistle. Official says that the players foot was over the free throw line and give us the ball. Opposing coach is questioning the official and he indicates that the players foot was over the line. Isn't the violation when the player shoots the ball and has their foot over the line ( not just dribbling the ball ) ?


Thanks

Adfter the free-throw shooter has received the ball from the administering official, it is a violation if he/she then steps on or over any line - the free-throw line or the free-throw semicircle line- anytime before the ball hits the ring or backboard or the free-throw ends.

Thanks for the info


Tip

TWEET! "We're going the other way" as I point to the line and then the opposite direction. He/she will never do it again.

And I wish y'all would call 3 seconds when the offensive player is by the free throw line and the lane line and his shoe lace is touching the line. This is a call I seldom seen made, and I don't know why you don't enforce it.

I believe there is a case where the shooter loses control of the ball, and steps over the line. I believe casebook states the referee should blow the whistle and restart, and not necessarily call the violation.

I understand the book rule for this situation, but what advantage did the shooter gain by sliding his foot past the line while dribbling, but then have it behind the line when he is ready to shoot? I would probably use a little preventative officiating by not calling the violation, and quietly tell the shooter to remain behind the line. A call like that is what drives coaches nuts!!!

The advantage gained by this action is possibly a point or the game. If indeed it was a violation, if the shooter stepped over the line because of an ill fated pass from the official then you would allow the shooter to reset and readminister the free throw. If the violation is strickly the fault of the shooter then call it. Do you allow a person inbounding the pass to step over the line? Consistancy is the key.

I'm with WIRef here...there's being a "book" official and a "real" official that separates the top refs from ones that stay mediocre. I don't know, but has anyone been to a camp where the clinicians tell you to call a toe over the line? I haven't, but I've certainly been to several that say to pass on that call.

A common term used in reffing is being "overly officious." Calling a toe over the line falls into that definition. A full step may be different, but I'd still warn in that case...especially for only a varsity game. Highschool kids are going to make mistakes without you pointing it out to the gym. Pull him/her aside and have a word...I assure you that this kid won't go over the line again even with a softer intervention.

The lines are part of the lane. The free throw shooter can't be touching the line, much less going over it. How much incursion is too much?

Just simply, it's the judgment of the official that makes him/her great. That official will be able to judge in that given situation what "too much" is.

For instance, if after you talked to the player he still puts his foot over the line (for argument's sake, even less than before) you may wish to call a violation now because he's disregarded your advice. If the coach goes off, then you have the wildcard in your back pocket to say that you'd already warned before and already gave your team a break. Now here's where your judgment comes in...you may NOT wish to call a violation in that exact same situation because it's an even less obvious infraction from before.

In essence, there's no magic point obviously which dictates that the player violated. By definition, obviously he violated the moment his foot went over the line while dribbling the ball. You need to simply exercise your discretion on possible minute violations. Does that extra 1-3" really create that much of an advantage when shooting a free throw from fifteen FEET away? Essentially, it could be the difference between a made basket and a clang off the rim, but if I'm the only one in the gym that saw that, then it's going to stay that way.

Everyone isn't an NCAA/NBA offical who has years of experience to draw from, but if you'd like to get to that level you have to start demonstrating the appropriate discipline given the particulars of the game at that time. Unless it's egregious, you're not seeing one of those refs make this call.

"Essentially, it could be the difference between a made basket and a clang off the rim, but if I'm the only one in the gym that saw that, then it's going to stay that way."

If it's the first half, there's a real good chance the other coach is going to see it.

Fair enough...that's your judgment and I respect that.

well, it'll drive one coach nuts- fer sure- if you <b>don't</b> call it. The coach of the team that you just screwed. And I don't blame him for going nuts.

It's a violation that everybody in the gym can see. It's no different than a player with the ball stepping on a boundary line, or a player with the ball in the front court stepping backward onto the division line. There's no judgement involved in these calls at all. There's also certainly no "preventive officiating" involved either. Do you warn dribblers not to step on a side line?

Adavantage/disadvantage does <b>not</b> apply to a basic violation that everyone in the gym can see. Never has. Never will.

Bad advice imo.

O.K. for arguments sake lets say you and the opposing coach are the only twopeople in the gym that see the violation. What do you say to the coach when you opt to pass on that call.

I disagree with that statement completely. If someone steps over the line, they call it. The films never lie.

I think this is something that could be dealt with differently at different levels.

Perhaps up to HS I let it go. If the kid shoots/lands over/on the line, then you call it. Quietly approach the kid before his next shot, or afterwards and warn him about the line. Heck, even if you say, while spinning your head to the players lined up, "Watch your feet fellas." That you're not centering anyone out.

HS and above, maybe you call it.

Juggler, they're talking about a FT shooter stepping <b>over</b> the line <b>before</b> shooting. Not "on" the line; "over" the line-- and "before" the free throw is shot.

I disagree with your statement...unless you're looking at a situation similar to Shaq in the All-star game, you're not going to see a D1 or NBA official call this. I've been to several camps led by these individiduals and the philosophy is clear...PASS!

It's like the old adage says, "Call the obvious!" If you're the only one who notices, then why nit-pick?

It's my feeling over the line on a free throw attempt is one thing..over the line while getting ready to shoot is something else. That can be blamed on a slippery ball, bad toss by the official, ad infinitum, or ad nauseum. But,like I said, if you're going to call three seconds because an offensive player is touching the free throw line with his heel, you might as well call this too.

You have to do something, b/c if he's stepped clear across the line, everybody has seen it. But was there any advantage gained? No. Remember that the point of the rule is to keep Wilt Chamberlain from jumping across the line and dunking the FT instead of shooting it from 15 feet from the rim. That's why the rule was put in place. Is little Jimmy doing that? No.

So here's what I would do. I would blow the whistle. Get the ball back from the kid. Rub my shoe over the same spot that the kid stepped on, like to get rid of some sweat on the floor. Tell the kid, "Stay behind the line, moron." Announce "2 shots" and give the kid the ball back.

And....what would you say if the coach of the non-shooting team now asks you why you didn't call the violation that <b>everybody</b> in the gym has seen? Do you handle it the exact same way if it occurs in the first quarter or in the last 2 seconds of a tie game?

"Coach, he was just trying to protect your player, so he wouldn't slip during the rebounding action."

Yes, of course. There's no way you're gonna call it in the last 2 seconds of a game unless the kid drives to the hoop for the layup.

Whaaaat? :confused:

We're talking about a free-throw <b>shooter</b> stepping <b>over</b> the line <b>before</b> he shoots. What has that got to do with protecting a player from the other team who's on a lane line from slipping during a rebound?

What if the FT shooter has <b>both</b> feet over the line at the same time before he shoots?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 21st, 2006 at 12:08 PM]

He's trying to get rid of the wet spot on the floor from the sweat so his opponent doesn't slip while trying to box out. He's a very thoughtful FT shooter.

It's a bigger wet spot than I thought it was.

Look, you want to do whatever you can NOT to call this violation in the closing seconds of a game. If you can't avoid it, then you have to call it, b/c everyone has seen it. But try to work with the kid. Get the ball back, pretend to clean up the sweat, tell him to stay behind the line, and let the kid shoot the FTs.

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.

You can't be a little out-of-bounds. This is the same thing.

Make the call. Or don't make the call and say you didn't see it. Stop using your private version of the rule book and use the one published by NFHS.

I disagree completely with you on this one. If it's that obvious that everyone in the gym can see it, then it's gotta be called. It's not like stepping <b>on</b> a 2" line, where you have a little wiggle room.

And where do you cut it off? It's OK to step <b>over</b> the line <b>before the</b> shot? Right? Is it also OK to step <b>over</b> the line <b>during</b> the shot- i.e. during the shooting motion <b>and</b> while the shot is in the air before it hits the board? And if not, whatintheheck is the difference?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 21st, 2006 at 12:39 PM]

I agree that if everybody sees it, you have to do something, although I would dearly love to find a way NOT to call the violation. And I stick to my previous comment that this call has absolutely NOTHING to do with the game. It is literally as much a part of the game as the X at the table.

It has NOTHING to do with the kid's FT: he hasn't shot it yet, so he's not getting an advantage by shooting from closer range or by running early for rebounding action.

It has NOTHING to do with sporting behavior: he's not defying you after you told him to stick to a spot.

It has NOTHING to do with a subsequent play: he's not going to be in a better position for his team's press, b/c he still has to be in the semi-circle when he shoots the ball.

How many times have you seen a kid in the semi-circle receive the ball and, in the process of setting his feet, put his toe on the line, then pull it back to where it should be? How many times you gonna call that violation? It's a violation. Go ahead and call it. What's the difference? The whole crowd didn't see it. So we're gonna make calls based on crowd consent? Obviously not.

There's no call in that case b/c the kid got no advantage and reset himself correctly before the FT. I think (I hope) that some similar thought process should take place in the other situation.

It's not the same thing. It's obviously not the same thing. The similarity is the line. Almost everything else is different. There's no play going on, no offensive or defensive action around him.

If anybody thinks it's a big deal and MUST be called, then that's whey s/he should do. I'm trying to give a different way to look at it and to prevent a call on an action that has literally no effect on the game.

Why is the official handing the ball to the FT shooter. Shouldn't that be a bounce pass from the lead?

1) Quite often.

2) Very, very very seldom.

Yup, the whole crowd- who I can give a damn about- didn't see it clearly. But.....the opposing coach isn't completely sure either whether it's a violation or not from where he is, even if it's right in front of him......and also.....a toe <b>on</b> the line ain't gonna show up on the films as being a <b>definite</b> violation either, because of uncertainties caused by camera angles, etc. Iow, you do have room on that one to exercise a little judgement, even though you know a violation was technically committed

Jmo, Chuck, but I honestly feel that your options are limited though when you get such an obvious violation.

I don't have anything to add.

Just wanted to preserve Chuck's huge typing error in it's glorious, pre-edit form.

Carry on.

I don't have anything to add.

Just wanted to preserve Chuck's huge typing error in it's glorious, pre-edit form.

Carry on. [/B][/QUOTE]Maybe it's some obscure reference to Little Miss Muffet when she was on the Rules Committee. You know- no "curds and whey" allowed on the bench.

Give Chuck <b>some</b> credit. The man is a scholar, you know.

A scholar on high doses of Nyquil!

I guess I was thinking about writing "that's what they should do" and realized it was poor grammar. But it came out wrong anyway.

A scholar on high doses of Nyquil!

[/B][/QUOTE]Don't you mean a scholar getting high on Nyquil?

Seeing you're a gentleman, a scholar, and a lover of fine Diet Coke(shaken, not stirred), riddle me this, ScholarMan:
- Iirc your average Nyquil bottle has a warning on it saying sumthin' like "do not take me if you're going to operate heavy machinery". And everybody usually takes Nyquil before going to bed anyway, right? Sooooooo.....when you get up in the middle of the night, isn't it also usually because you gotta take a leak, right? Not because you just got a sudden urge to drive a bulldozer?

What's up with that?

So many questions, so few answers.......

Unless you gotta drive the bulldozer to the outhouse.


It's those front-loaders that you gotta watch out fer, tho.

Don't you mean a scholar getting high on Nyquil?

Seeing you're a gentleman, a scholar, and a lover of fine Diet Coke(shaken, not stirred), riddle me this, ScholarMan:
- Iirc your average Nyquil bottle has a warning on it saying sumthin' like "do not take me if you're going to operate heavy machinery". And everybody usually takes Nyquil before going to bed anyway, right? Sooooooo.....when you get up in the middle of the night, isn't it also usually because you gotta take a leak, right? Not because you just got a sudden urge to drive a bulldozer?

What's up with that?

So many questions, so few answers....... [/B][/QUOTE]

JR, I'm a little concerned that you're commenting on Chuck's "machinery" on a public forum!!!

JR,
Are you saying that it is a violation for the FT shooter to step ON the semicircle line after receiving the ball?

Well, 9.1.8 enjoins players not in marked lane spaces from breaking the plane of the three-point line and the free-throw line extended, and 1-5-1 says the lane lines and the free-throw line are part of the lane . . . from which I would conclude that it's OK for the shooter to step on the three-point line semicircle . . .

If it's not, please reply quickly, I'm on my way out the door to a game!

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 22nd, 2006 at 05:39 PM]

NFHS 9-1-7: "The free thrower 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 SEMI-CIRCLE LINE."

(Sorry for the caps - I haven't figured out how to underline, bold, etc. on the forum.)

what if the raised part of the shooter's toe was directly behind or above the line. Upon shooting, the toe part comes in ever so slight contact with the black line? I've seen it quite a few times, have yet to call it, and I have never heard anyone complain. If your like shaq, however, and you take one big "stomp" over the free throw line during your shot, you should be penalized. using good judgement is the key. Some calls, however correct they may be, take away from the game IMO!!

Exactly my point. This speaks of the edge of the line which is farther from the basket. In the case of the semicircle that would be the edge which comes flush with the three point line. Therefore, it is ok to step ON this semicircle but not over it. At least that is my understanding. I was wondering if JR had a different conception.

Bold is done by using the Bold Emphasis HTML tag, but with brackets instead of angle brackets.

IOW:

The key to the right of the P, then a b, then the key to the right of the key to the right of the P. Then your text. Then the same thing with a question-mark-slash (AKA slash) before the lowercase b.

Substitute u for underline and i for italics.

I'm interpreting the semicircle line the same as all other lane lines during a free-throw - the vertical planes of the boundaries of which cannot be broken by "either foot" (9-1-7, 9-1-8, 9-1-9) of the player occupying the area.

The ommission of a comma in 9-1-7, however, in "...farther from the basket (no comma here) or the free-throw semi-circle line," would provide a case for interpreting the semicircle line farthest from the basket to be the line whose vertical plane cannot be broken by either foot. So I see both sides. I'm still inclined to feel that the intent of the rule is to contain the free throw shooter inside of the insides of the lines that form the semicircle. It seems inconsistent that the rules would allow for the breaking of that particular vertical boundary line when the breaking all others during free throws are violations.

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?

Actually JR don't really know for sure and JR don't really care. :) I've never seen a FT shooter wander around after getting the ball and step on the semi-circle line, and I doubt that I ever will either. Iow, JR is sorry that he mentioned the semi-circle line, because it ain't really relevant to what we've been discussing- which is a FT shooter stepping on or over the FT line after he's got the ball. That <b>is</b> a violation- which is why I cited that rule.

I (as C in 3-person, or T in 2-person) have had numerous players receive the bounce from the L while standing somewhere in the middle of the semi-circle, and then proceed to sort of rock back with one foot farther back than the other, or step back and then step up into their shooting stance and come very close to stepping on the inside of the line, and have, actually, had a player whose habit was to receive the ball with his heels just off said line (and then step up and starting bouncing the ball before shooting), who actually stepped ON the line (but not all the way over it). This of course happened directly in front of the opposing coach's chair with about one minute remaining in a very close, very heated boys JV game - and was also the first attempt of a one-and-one. I was a second-year official, was dumbfounded, and took a bit of verbal and staring abuse from the offended coach in the ensuing time out that he called before the second shot (the first, of course, went through, as did the second) just to "ask" why I hadn't called a violation.

And I'm spent.

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.

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 <b>on</b> 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 <b>farthest</b> 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 <b>edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket</b> or the free-throw semicircle line".

As R1-6 says that the farthest edge of the free-throw line is <b>always</b> 15' from the plane of the backboard and is <b>always</b> 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......

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.

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/respect.gif

What about a sideline.
 

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?

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!

Re: What about a sideline.
 

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.

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.

Re: Re: What about a sideline.
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: What about a sideline.
 

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

Calling OOB But Not FT Violations !?!?
 

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!

Re: Calling OOB But Not FT Violations !?!?
 

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.

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....

No One Has Answered This Aspect...
 

Out of bounds is out of bounds. It's live action play. It's far different than a free throw where the ball isn't even being shot.

Well, I am someone who does try to call by the rules as they are written, and I try not to pass on things that will show up on tape, so I am probably not the best person to give you an explanation, however here is what makes sense to me.

The advantage gained by the player touching OOB is that this player used more of the court than is allowed while trying to execute offensive maneuvers against a team playing defense. Forcing the defense to defend a greater area or using more space is an advantage to the offense.

During a FT there is by definition NO defense allowed. That is why it is defined as an unhindered try for goal. If the player momentarily is not exactly where he should be, but does get into proper position before attempting the throw, then it is hard to say that an advantage was gained over the defense by being in this earlier location.

I could see passing on a player having a toe on the FT line, since it is close and depending upon the camera angle may not show up well. However, being across that line is going to be quite clear on a video and the official is not going to have a quality defense for failing to make that call.

Officiating advice that many have said and heard is to call the obvious.