Free Throw Lane Violation???
 

Saw this recently and wondered what is the correct ruling:

Free throw attempt with lane spaces occupied. Player in bottom lane space leans over lane line getting ready for rebound when she loses her balance, tips forward, touches the lane with her hands, and then is able to regain her balance without ever breaking the vertical lane line plane with her foot. Refs blew whistle for violation of "coming into the lane too soon" (assume there was no disconcertion), awarded a repeat free throw (first one missed), and no one said a thing.

Someone sitting next to me stated (correctly) that rule 9 defining the free throw violation prohibits the "foot braking the plane" prior to the ball touching the rim but makes no reference to a person touching the free throw lane area prior to the free throw restrictions being removed.

Is touching the free throw lane area with one's hand in the above situation a free throw violation or not?

Here's the ncaa rule 9-1-2h, similar to the HS rule I believe except the HS rule frees the players on the lane on the hit:
I can't see a reference to a foot.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

Please. Violation.

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.

My pre-game ends with the following:

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

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?

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.

On this play, the only concern, I think is disconcertion, as someone referred to earlier. By rule, if the shot goes, there must not have been disconcertion, so you don't call it. If the shot doesn't go, call it. The judgment of advantage/disadvantage is built right in.

Refering to the original post:

If this situation had happened in one of my games by a member of the defensive team, I know that I would have given the delayed violation signal and ignored the violation if the shot went in, or I would have called the violation if the shot missed (barring any other odd circumstances). If this act was by a member of the offensive team, I would have immediatley called a violation.

But after reading this thread I wasn't sure, according to the rules, why I would have called the play as I indicated above, that is, until I went to the rule book. I think that I, like many other posters to this thread, was concentrating too much on Rule 9 Section 1 Article 9, which deals with the foot moving or not moving over the vertical plane of the lane boundary.

Instead of concentrating on Article 9, check out Article 6 of the same rule and section, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space". In my opinion, in the original situation, the player has left the marked lane space by placing her hand in the lane.

Not in my opinion. Of course, our personal opinions don't really matter. We are talking about what the rules say.
The best rules support I can point to for those advocating a violation is the analogy to the throw-in. The thrower is not allowed to touch the inbounds part of the court. That is considered leaving the spot. Of course, the thrower IS allowed to break the plane, so the parallel is not perfect.

All that being said, according to how the current NFHS rules are written, touching the lane with your hand isn't a FT violation. I have said this on this very forum numerous times in the past. It could well be disconcertion, that is a judgment decision, but you can't just make up your own rules and call a violation here.

This play isn't new. It is just a quirk in the rules that has been pointed out before. If the NFHS wants to clean it up, they will.

Now since we are adding to the case play list, how about the girls who stand in the bottom defensive space with their toe on the floor and heel up in the air extending OVER the 12' neutral zone block. Technically that IS a FT violation.
:)

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

Leaving Marked Lane Space
 

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 <b>does</b> apply to violations?:confused: 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".

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=27025

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 <b>NOW</b> call this violation even though the act was incidental and not vital and there was <b>NO</b> advantage/disadvantage applicable? Right?

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

As I said above this is not new. This has been discussed before on this forum. Here are the links to three recent threads that you should go read as the questions you pose are answered therein. The first link is the the most detailed.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...lane+violation

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...lane+violation

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...lane+violation

Call The Obvious
 

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.

Closure ???
 

Nevadaref: Thanks for the Forum thread links regarding this lane violation (or not) issue. Maybe now I know why Forum members are not jumping over themselves trying to give an opinion on this issue (see my post above), because it's been dealt with in the past.

That doesn't mean that I still wouldn't appreciate an official or semi-official interpretation regarding this play from someone with some degree of authority on this Forum. There must be an association or board interpreter or clinician on the Forum who can give us some official or semiofficial interpretation, and I'm not talking about advantage disadvantage here, I'm taking about a strict rule book answer to this situation.

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

_______________________

Yeah, but I'm going to call that one every time. :D That ought to be a case play, I tell you. No mucous in any game! Maybe we ought to call excessive sweating, too!

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 <b>not</b> 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 <b>still</b> 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.

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.

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. :D

I don't know why you think there "must be" someone official here to answer this question. If there was, we wouldn't have had the long previous thread. And, there's about a dozen more threads with no clear cut answer.

But, by a strict reading of the rules book, this is not a violation.