Free Throw Lane Violation???

[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?