Kentucky/Mississippi State Lane Violation

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, it can be argued that 9-1-2g doesn't apply either because that provision says "shall remain behind" and obviously a player cannot remain anywhere until he gets to where his is going.

You're nucking futs.

Remain = stay. As in be there before and remain there. The player not on a marked lane space must stay behind the 3 pt line. If he is inside the 3 pt line/ft line extended but not legally on the lane he's violated.

Period.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You're nucking futs.

Remain = stay. As in be there before and remain there. The player not on a marked lane space must stay behind the 3 pt line. If he is inside the 3 pt line/ft line extended but not legally on the lane he's violated.

Period.

Do we agree that he can leave the lane as long as the shooter has not received the ball from the official?

If so, you cannot then penalize the player who left legally simply because he hasn't made it beyond the arc yet.

Would not the prudent thing to do be to get the ball back from the shooter, make sure everyone is set, then resume?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cshs81

Do we agree that he can leave the lane as long as the shooter has not received the ball from the official?

If so, you cannot then penalize the player who left legally simply because he hasn't made it beyond the arc yet.

Would not the prudent thing to do be to get the ball back from the shooter, make sure everyone is set, then resume?

While you make a nice argument logically, there is nothing that says that the official can't penalize this player who is yet beyond the arc.

That is exactly why I think that we will see an A.R. from the NCAA on this in next year's book.

[Nevadaref]

Oddly after seeing the replay on SportsCenter, I noticed that Thomas, the player in question, not only stops, but he then turns around and returns to his original lane space! Thus he actually did violate 9-1-2e as he ENTERED a marked lane space after the ball was at the disposal of the FT shooter.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

While you make a nice argument logically, there is nothing that says that the official can't penalize this player who is yet beyond the arc.

That is exactly why I think that we will see an A.R. from the NCAA on this in next year's book.

You're still nucking futs and you still do not understand the rule as written.

There are exactly 2 places a non-shooter may stand during the free throw, from the beginning to the time when he is released by rule. Those 2 places are in a marked lane space or outside the 3 pt line/FT line extended. This is all nicely spelled out in the rules. Also nicely spelled out in the rules is exactly when a player is released from that position. To claim there's confusion, lack of clarity or inconsistency due to how you choose to interpret the word 'remain' is simple minded at best. Under your interpretation (which you already agreed is incorrect btw) a player can legally stand and remain within the 3 pt line/FT line extended as long as he's not in a marked lane space and he takes that position prior to the FT beginning. Again, it's a simple minded & foolish interpretation. In fact, why not also include an AR that states a player is not permitted to run and get a bag of popcorn during the FT?

So go get yourself a nice cool glass of water and join the rest of us here back on planet earth.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You're still nucking futs and you still do not understand the rule as written.

There are exactly 2 places a non-shooter may stand during the free throw, from the beginning to the time when he is released by rule. Those 2 places are in a marked lane space or outside the 3 pt line/FT line extended. This is all nicely spelled out in the rules. Also nicely spelled out in the rules is exactly when a player is released from that position. To claim there's confusion, lack of clarity or inconsistency due to how you choose to interpret the word 'remain' is simple minded at best. Under your interpretation (which you already agreed is incorrect btw) a player can legally stand and remain within the 3 pt line/FT line extended as long as he's not in a marked lane space and he takes that position prior to the FT beginning. Again, it's a simple minded & foolish interpretation. In fact, why not also include an AR that states a player is not permitted to run and get a bag of popcorn during the FT?

So go get yourself a nice cool glass of water and join the rest of us here back on planet earth.

What is not nicely spelled out is what happens when a player leaves the lane while the ball is being passed to the thrower but BEFORE the ball gets to the thrower. The interpretation question is not a foolish one. If the basis of the violation is assuming that any movement occurs AFTER the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, it does not take into account this EXACT situation.

Again, if the rule says that a player can leave the lane BEFORE the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, logic would say that the official must let him leave in that case and get to his desired legal position.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by cshs81

What is not nicely spelled out is what happens when a player leaves the lane while the ball is being passed to the thrower but BEFORE the ball gets to the thrower. The interpretation question is not a foolish one. If the basis of the violation is assuming that any movement occurs AFTER the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, it does not take into account this EXACT situation.

Again, if the rule says that a player can leave the lane BEFORE the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, logic would say that the official must let him leave in that case and get to his desired legal position.

Who cares if nothing is spelled out in the rule book about a player leaving a marked lane space while the ball is being thrown to the FT shooter? It's completely and totally irrelevant, rules-wise. What happens AFTER the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter IS what is relevant. That's what the rules cover.

What rule states that a player can leave the lane before the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter? And after you cite the rule, would you please explain how and why this rule is pertinent or applicable in this situation?

Again, NCAA rule 9-1-2(g) states that after the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter, NO player may be outside a marked lane space and inside the 3-point line. That's the violation that was committed in the above situation, and that's the violation that was called. All that gobblydegook coming from the King of Overthinking is just meaningless. There's no gray area at all on this play. It's a straight-forward call.

[MadCityRef]

Doug Gottlieb of ESPN and the C on the floor had it right. Violation. The other commentator blamed the L and crew for not letting the kid violate, etc. None of the crew told him to leave, Tubby did.
The T and C baled out the L who wanted a do-over by letting UK call the TO. Too often we try to ignore stuff that we shouldn't. This was an obvious get.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What rule states that a player can leave the lane before the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter?

You are approaching this from the wrong direction. You desire a rule which permits the player to leave. There isn't one. However, there is also no rule which prohibits the player from leaving BEFORE the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter. I can turn your question around on you and ask you to cite a rule which PROHIBITS the player from leaving at this time. As you well know, there isn't one.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Again, NCAA rule 9-1-2(g) states that after the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter, NO player may be outside a marked lane space and inside the 3-point line.

Nope, what you say the rule states is simply not true. That may well be what it MEANS, but that is not what it SAYS. I quoted it earlier, and it actually SAYS "shall remain behind..."

Now how does one remain somewhere where one hasn't been? cshs81 is making the point that don't we have to let someone get somewhere before we require him to remain there?