Free Throw Lane Violation???

[Mark Padgett]

NF 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 lane boundary..."

[BktBallRef]

While the rule says foot, if a player touches the lane with any part of his body, I have a violation. The foot is used because players are allowed to lean over the FT lane without penalty. Breaking the plane with the foot is the first "step" in entering the lane too soon. The NFHS was not invisioning such a scenario when they worded this rule. Yes, it's something that should be addressed by rule but until they do, a little common sense has to be used. Call it disconcertion if you like.

[Camron Rust]

A general principle is that a player is located where they are currently touching. If they're touching two areas, one takes precedent. If the player is touching the lane, they're located in the lane.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

While the rule says foot, if a player touches the lane with any part of his body, I have a violation. The foot is used because players are allowed to lean over the FT lane without penalty. Breaking the plane with the foot is the first "step" in entering the lane too soon. The NFHS was not invisioning such a scenario when they worded this rule. Yes, it's something that should be addressed by rule but until they do, a little common sense has to be used. Call it disconcertion if you like.

Chuck?

Oh, ChucK?

This might be a good case play to send in too. We missed this one.

I agree with the above too btw. Common sense.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Chuck?

Please. Violation.

[Jimgolf]

What is the advantage gained here, assuming no disconcertion? Why is this different than letting a 3-seconds violation slide?

BTW, I'm not advocating letting either way. I'm trying to get educated as to when judgment is appropriate and when the letter of the rule is appropriate.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

What is the advantage gained here, assuming no disconcertion? Why is this different than letting a 3-seconds violation slide?

BTW, I'm not advocating letting either way. I'm trying to get educated as to when judgment is appropriate and when the letter of the rule is appropriate.

Perhaps the thinking is now that player (A1) is occupying a space/spot in the lane that an opponent can't get to without contact, and A1 got to that spot before the rules intended.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Perhaps the thinking is now that player (A1) is occupying a space/spot in the lane that an opponent can't get to without contact, and A1 got to that spot before the rules intended.

I was referring to the original post, where the girl fell into the lane with her hands, but got back to her feet. This is not the same as someone intentionally stepping into the lane early to get an advantage (and in fact she may be at a disadvantage because she may be too embarassed to go after the rebound), yet is penalized the same.

I also saw a game yesterday where the inbounds player stepped a little early onto the court when inbounding the ball after a made shot. Most of the times, especially in summer ball, this goes unnoticed, as the trail official is usually not paying too much attention, but this particular official was watching and called it.

In neither case does the offender gain an advantage if the violation is ignored, other than not being assessed the appropriate penalty. How is this different from 3-seconds, which is also usually "obvious"? (Thanks for your answer, Chuck)

The reason I mentioned the 3-seconds call was that someone had posted the other day that they haven't made a 3-seconds call since the 60's ( I think it was MTD, Sr.). Why is 3-seconds a judgment call and not inadvertant violation of the playing area?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why is this different than letting a 3-seconds violation slide?

My pre-game ends with the following:

1. Referee the defense.
2. Protect the shooter.
3. Call the obvious.
4. Trust your partner.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

My pre-game ends with the following:

1. Referee the defense.
2. Protect the shooter.
3. Call the obvious.
4. Trust your partner.

I once read, "Don't go looking for mucous hanging off someone's nose."

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why is this different than letting a 3-seconds violation slide?

What are you talking about? I don't understand this reference. It certainly isn't something that's ever happened in one of my games.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

While the rule says foot, if a player touches the lane with any part of his body, I have a violation. The foot is used because players are allowed to lean over the FT lane without penalty. Breaking the plane with the foot is the first "step" in entering the lane too soon. The NFHS was not invisioning such a scenario when they worded this rule. Yes, it's something that should be addressed by rule but until they do, a little common sense has to be used. Call it disconcertion if you like.

You're lucky Mr. Spelling Guy is gone for the weekend!

[BillyMac]

Nevadaref:

May I respectfully ask, in the original case in this thread, how has the player not "(left) a marked lane space" ?

I'm sure that many officials, including mayself, possibly you, have called violations for players backing out of the lane space (3 feet deep) to be replaced by a taller teammate or to be closer to the man they're covering, to a player switching lane spaces with teammate by moving laterally to get a better matchup, or to teammates switching lane positions across the lane to get a better matchup.

How does a player entering the lane space by placing their hand in the lane not qualify as "leaving a marked lane space"? Are we utilizing the Tower Philosophy or the philsophy of advantage disadvantage here ? When a player is off balance near a sideline, endline, or division line (from frontcourt) and places their hand out of bounds (or backcourt) do we not call the violation ?

One thing that I agree with you about, is that we differ in opinion, but I prefer to call it a difference in "interpretation". Perhaps there is an association or board interpreter in the Forum with more experience than you or me (25 years, mostly high school varsity) that can offer some type of official interpretation.

Bottom line for me: I would call this a violation, but I would like to know for sure that I have a rule or interpretation citation to back up may call. Right now I'm pretty sure about my own humble interpretatation, but I would like to be 100% sure my way or your way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevadaref:

May I respectfully ask, in the original case in this thread, how has the player not "(left) a marked lane space" ?

I'm sure that many officials, including mayself, possibly you, have called violations for players backing out of the lane space (3 feet deep) to be replaced by a taller teammate or to be closer to the man they're covering, to a player switching lane spaces with teammate by moving laterally to get a better matchup, or to teammates switching lane positions across the lane to get a better matchup.

How does a player entering the lane space by placing their hand in the lane not qualify as "leaving a marked lane space"? Are we utilizing the Tower Philosophy or the philsophy of advantage disadvantage here ? When a player is off balance near a sideline, endline, or division line (from frontcourt) and places their hand out of bounds (or backcourt) do we not call the violation ?

One thing that I agree with you about, is that we differ in opinion, but I prefer to call it a difference in "interpretation". Perhaps there is an association or board interpreter in the Forum with more experience than you or me (25 years, mostly high school varsity) that can offer some type of official interpretation.

Bottom line for me: I would call this a violation, but I would like to know for sure that I have a rule or interpretation citation to back up may call. Right now I'm pretty sure about my own humble interpretatation, but I would like to be 100% sure my way or your way.

Geeze, now you're confusing the heck outa me, Billy.

Don't you personally believe, and also doesn't your association teach, that the Tower Philosophy does apply to violations? Arent you the one that said:
1) "I do however disagree with you that the Tower Philosophy only deals with with fouls and should not be used with violations".
2) "Examples where I, and members of my association, believe that the Philosophy should be used with violations include the carry(palming) and the three-second rule".

How often do you see this???

So......if a player in a marked spot quickly puts a hand down in the lane, and then just-as-quickly brought it back up, and this act wasn't disconcerting in any way, you would NOW call this violation even though the act was incidental and not vital and there was NO advantage/disadvantage applicable? Right?

Iow, have you and your association changed your philosophy from the one outlined in the thread that I cited above?

[BillyMac]

Jurassic Referee: I'm sorry if I confused you with my recent post to this thread. As I reread the post "are we utilizing the Tower Philosophy or the philsophy of advantage disadvantage here" should have actually read "are you utilizing the Tower Philosophy or the philsophy of advantage disadvantage here".

In my opinion, this specific situation does not require the use of the advantage disadvantage principle because of a principle that I don't think is covered by any NFHS or IAABO (my affiliation) rule, case book play, or interpretation: "Call the obvious".

I was simply trying to find out if Nevadaref was not going to call this (possible) violation because of an official rule interpretation which, in my mind, would have required a rule, case book, or official interpretation citation, or if Nevadaref was passing on this (possible) violation because of an advantage disadvantage philosophy.

Jurassic Referee: It would be interesting for me to find out exactly how you would call the original play cited in this thread. I'm talking about a real game situation where this instantly happened on the side of the lane that you are responsible for covering during a foul shot without the advantage of being a Monday morning quarterback or the benefit of hindsight: Would you interpret the hand in the lane as leaving a marked lane space ? If not, how would you use the rules to explain your interpretation to a polite coach ? If so, how would you use the rules to explain your interpretation to a polite coach ? If you believed that a violation had occurred (barring a made basket, disconcertion, or any other odd occurence), would you pass on the call due to advantage disadvantage principle ? Would you utilize the "call the obvious" that a lot of officials use in their pregame conference.

Finally, I can't believe that Rusty's original thread hasn't generated more interest from the Forum. Rusty's play should have opened up a giant can of worms: Foot crossing the plane of the lane line ? Leaving a marked lane space ? Play that may not be covered by the rules ? Is this play already covered by the rules ? Advantage disadvantage ? Call the obvious ? Are many of us on vacation ? Is this microphone working ?

I would really like to know what the correct call is on this play. I think I'm right but I'm not more than 80% sure. Are there any association or board interpreters out there who can give us the 100% NFHS interpretation on this play ? Please.