Free Throw Lane Violation???

[Rusty Gilbert]

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?

[Dan_ref]

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:

h. Players occupying any of the legal marked lane spaces on each side of the lane may break the vertical plane of a lane-space boundary once the free-thrower has released the ball.

I can't see a reference to a foot.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.