Free Throw Lane Violation???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) 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".

2)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.

3) 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 ?

1) Billy, just for clarity's sake, what violations do you feel that advantage/disadvantage applies to, and what violations do you feel that advantage/disadvantage do not apply to? Please note though, for the record, that I still completely disagree with your premise that either advantage/disadvantage or the Tower Philosophy do apply to violations in the first place. When Chuck Elias returns, I'll ask him again if he received any feedback from his e-mail to the national IAABO interpreter, as per the thread that I cited. If not, I know several people that are going to the fall IAABO meeting in Toronto, including Chuck; I'll see if I can get one of them to acquire an IAABO clarification at that meeting.

2) From those other threads that Nevada cited, I think that you can safely say that I'm still gonna call a lane violation if any body part of a player in a marked lane space touches the lane before the foul shot restrictions end. Iow, I haven't changed my mind. That's the purpose and intent of the rule imo. Calling it any other way in any game that mattered could possibly be a career altering move also imo.

3) More interest and discussion haven't been generated from that situation because I can't really think of too many officials, other than Nevada, that would ever even think of ignoring that particular lane touching. It's a no-brainer to most officials iow; just call the violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

... officials, other than Nevada, that would ever even think of ignoring that particular lane touching. It's a no-brainer to most officials iow; just call the violation.

Just to clarify my position on this matter, I wouldn't ignore it. I would look at it and decide whether or not it is disconcertion. Most likely it is. What I would not do is call a violation which does not exist. There is simply no rule in the book that says this is such.

As always that is only my opinion obtained by reading the rules as they are written. I am not someone of any authority in the NFHS and cannot give the definitive statement that BillyMac is seeking. My association is not IAABO affiliated and we do not have an titled rules interpreter.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From those other threads that Nevada cited, I think that you can safely say that I'm still gonna call a lane violation if any body part of a player in a marked lane space touches the lane before the foul shot restrictions end.

A1 is in the semicircle and has the ball prior to attempting the first of two FTs. B1 in first marked land space notices that his right shoe is untied. He bends down on his left knee, which contacts the floor in the FT lane, and ties his right shoe while A1 attempts the throw. Neither of B1's feet break the plane of the FT lane boundary during this action.

The above is certainly not a problem for me.