Kentucky/Mississippi State Lane Violation
 

Kentucky shooting a free throw, leading by three, a few seconds left in the game. Kentucky player leaves the lane almost exactly at the same time the official lets go of the ball to throw it to the shooter. Lane violation called. Mississippi State ties game, then goes on to win in OT.

ESPN commentators argue over whether or not it's the right call, spirit vs. letter of the rule, etc. etc.

What do you guys think?

I saw the replay, looked like the L was trying to do it over.

My take: Player at that level in that sitch should know better. If you're going to make the violation that obvious don't expect the officials to cover your azz.

The Lead who was administering the FT blew the whistle, tapped his chest, and was going to reset the FT, when his partners came in and convinced him that a violation needed to be called.

Since the player left his marked lane space before the shooter caught the ball, the time at which it becomes at his disposal, there is no violation for leaving a marked lane space.

9-1-2e. No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space.

However, since the player stopped and turned while remaining inside the 3pt arc, he was breaking another provision of the FT.

9-1-2g. Players not in a legal marked lane space shall remain behind the freethrow line extended and behind the three-point field-goal line until the ball strikes the ring, flange or backboard, or until the free throw ends.

Therefore, in my opinion, the call was justified and the officials were correct to make it. Tubby Smith should have communicated to his player to vacate the lane earlier. He actually caused the violation.

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. Therefore, this rule could be interpreted to only apply to players who are behind the three point line at the time the FT shooter receives the ball.

Since it happened at a crucial juncture of an important game, I expect that we will now see a clarification of these rules from the NCAA.

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.

If "at his disposal" does not start until the thrower actually catches the ball, what would the ref do in this case had the player who left the lane not hesitated? Would he get the ball back from the shooter until all players were set?

He could or he could do absolutely nothing and let play continue.

I can't see how he would choose to let play continue when you have a player in no-man's land.

Calm down, Dan. Go have a drink or whatever works for you. :)

I said that it could be argued that way because of the wording of the rule. I didn't say that I believe that to be the case. I actually contend that exactly what you say is how the rule should be interpreted.

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.

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.

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.

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 <b>AFTER</b> the ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter <b>IS</b> what is relevant. That's what the rules cover.

<b>What</b> 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, <b>NO</B> 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.