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.

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.

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.

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?

Anyone know if there's video of this online yet? I'd like to see this play for myself before passing judgement on good ol' J.B. "I'm not bitter" Caldwell.

Nevada has it right. The rules reference "remaining". A player in transition should be allowed to get in/out if the ball is not yet at the disposal of the shooter. If the ref bounces the ball when the player is in transition, the ref should kill the ball immediately (preferably before it reaches the shooter) and restart the FT. This is EXACTLY the same reasoning for killing the FT when the shooter bounces the ball off his foot. No rule exists to allow that but that handling is provided through inpertretation.

Be careful, Camron, if you side with me Dan will call you something nasty and possibly post an accompanying picture (maybe even of a squirrel!). :D

Lah me.....

The player <b>WASN't</b> in transition when the L bounced the ball. The player left <b>AFTER</b> the L bounced the ball. The L did <b>NOT</b> bounce the ball when a player on the lane was <b>ALREADY</b> in transition. That's why it's a very simple violation under the rules.

Yeah, I know. I'm using an actual, live clear rule instead of a bunch of meaningless gobbleydegook. Silly ol' me.

The player violated NCAA rule 9-1-2(g). That's the only direction that you can come from, by rule. You're basically trying to argue that it's legal for a player to be outside of a lane space and inside the 3-point line when a ball is at the disposal of the FT shooter. Sorry. That's just plain wrong....and stoopid!

Ask and ye shall recieve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd-hPD3HXu4

Thanks
 

shave-tail: Thanks.

Looks like J.B. tried to call the do-over (I definately heard him shouting "my time!"), but he didn't hit the whistle until a split second after the shooter had the ball in hand. I think the crew got it right by going with the violation.

How does one "...remain behind..." a place after something begins if he is not behind that place prior to the start of that thing?

Two Choices
 

After watching the video, I've come up with two possible outcomes:

1) If the lead official noticed the player moving out of a marked lane space after the ball was thrown by the official, but before it was caught by the shooter, I think he should have blown his whistle and gotten everything settled down before proceeding. It's all about preventative officiating.

2) If the above didn't happen, then a violation should have been called for a player moving into marked lane space after the ball was at the disposal of the shooter. Real simple violation to call.

Also, it's real easy for us to watch a video and discuss what should have or could have happened, but we all have to remember that the officials had to make a split second decision, take the ball back from the shooter and reset, or call the free throw violation. It officiating was easy, we wouldn't be getting paid the big bucks to do it.

Soooooo......how do you explain that to the <b>opposing</b> coach? You know, the guy that was 15 feet out on the court, going nuts? How exactly are you going to tell him that, yes, the other team committed a violation, but you're going to ignore that violation even though you have <b>NO</b> rules backing to do so? How do you explain that to a league commissioner, assignor or evaluator too?

Here's where your logic goes astray. As soon as the ball was caught by the FT thrower, a violation occurred. As an official, you <b>can</b> try to prevent a violation from occurring. You can't <b>prevent</b> a violation that has <b>already</b> occurred however. That's impossible.

Way Out Of My League ...
 

Jurassic Referee: You're right. If none of the officials was able to blow their whistles during the dead ball period between the time that the ball was released by the lead official and the ball being caught, at the disposal, of the shooter, then it would be, and should be a violation. If the a whistle was blown during the dead ball period between the time that the the ball was released by the lead official and the ball being caught, at the disposal, of the shooter, then I believe that the ball, by NFHS Rule 7-7-5 (I realize that this is an NCAA game), is dead, and no violation could occur, and there is no violation to ignore, which is what I would have explained to the irate coach.

Also, in part two of my answer, I was trying to come up with a simply answer as to why a violation would be and should be called. To make it as simple as possible, I don't believe that the officials, or the members of this Forum, should have considered whether the player moved out of the marked lane space for a violation, or whether the player was inside the three point arc, below the free throw line extended, for a violation. At its simpliest, from the video, the player moves into a marked lane space after the ball is at the disposal of the shooter (NFHS Rule 9-1-6).

I am only familiar with NFHS rules and IAABO mechanics. I can't pretend to know enough about NCAA rules and mechanics to make any further comments. One thing that I do know, is, that even in my toughest high school games, I'm sure I'm not anywhere near under the pressure that these NCAA Division I officials are under. I probably should have kept my comments to myself. I'm nowhere near being in the same "league" as the officials in this situation, or the NCAA Division I officals on this Forum. Also, its a lot easier to make the call watching the video than it was for the officials to make the call in real time.

1) Billy, if you look at the video, the L didn't put his whistle into his mouth until <b>after</b> the FT shooter had the ball. The other officials obviously didn't blow their whistles before the FT shooter either, or they couldn't have called the violation. Your reasoning is correct, but obviously(at least to me) there was no whistle <b>before</b> the FT shooter got the ball.

2) Naw, at it's simplest, as soon as the FT shooter gets the ball, his opponent violates immediately by being outside of a lane space but inside the arc. The NFHS equivalent to the NCAA rule is 9-1-8. What the player does after committing that violation-- be it returning to a lane space-- is moot because the play is now over. Make sense?

Right Again
 

Jurassic Referee: You're right again. After viewing the video, the officials did make the correct call, 100%, no arguement from me. I was just trying to add a hypothetical situation where some preventative officiating might have prevented this violation. As you pointed out, something that I didn't notice, is that the lead official didn't even have the whistle in his mouth. It's tough to blow the whistle when it's not in your mouth. Hypothetically, too bad the other two officials didn't catch this while the ball was still dead, but I'm not familiar enough with three man mechanics, and primary coverage, to make any pertinent comments. Almost all of our high school games here in Connecticut are two man games.

Also, there are several violations that could have been called in this situation. I believe that the easiest violation to explain, in watching the video, one that leaves little to argue about, is that the player moves into a marked lane space after the ball is at the disposal of the shooter.

Violation or mistake?
 

What do you call if a player starts to leave a marked lane space BEFORE the ball is placed at the disposal of the shooter (meaning in the shooters hand)?
What if that player is in transition from one area on the court to another?
Like others said before me, I blow it dead because all the players were not set and legal before the shooter gets the ball. I start over and don't penalize either team for my mistake of not telling the players to hold their positions. If either coach gets upset, I will tell him that it was my mistake and I would give him the same courtesy. Then go back and start the play over.
At 5.1 seconds in a close, critical game I let the players decide the outcome of the game not me!

1) We're supposed to warn the players to hold their spots? And if we don't, it's a mistake on our part? I didn't know that.

2) Doers that mean that you won't blow your whistle on <b>any</b> fouls or violations in the last 5.1 seconds?

On the video it looks like the player did decide the outcome of the game because he violated.

If you will not call fouls/violations etc. in a critical or non critical game especially at the end of a game then YOU are deciding the out come of a game and not the players. If they choose or mess up by fouling or violating then just call it, that way the players truely are the people deciding the outcome of the game.

Well, you could use the same reason that you're going to use for not T'ing the coach for being 15' on the floor. :D

I'd go so fars as to say that the official needed to recognize the situation before the shooter had the ball. Perhaps his whistle wasn't in his mouth.

If not, I can agree with the violation.

If one must "remain" someplace, then one is required to have been there to begin with. Failure to "be" in that place necessitates failure to "remain" there. The violation is correct by even the stricted linguistic parsing of this rule.

An unsporting technical foul is always a judgment call at that level. A violation isn't.

Thats why it is so important to take your time to administer the FT. I double and tripple check to make sure all players are in place, after about 5 bounces of the ball before I bounce it to the player. NFHS needs to also clarify the ruling of at the disposal of the free thrower. Once place it says bounced and in another it says bounced and caught.

Really? I don't have my books here, so I can't check. It's been on tests in the past, and the answer is clearly "caught" (or placed on the floor).

Yep, I remember reading it. They need to clarify. I would think at the disposal would be caught and secured by the player.

15' on the floor going ballistic at the refs and that's the best you can come up with? In fact, if you hadn't already taken the stance that violation has to be called, you'd be taking the position that you simply have to T the coach....that you just couldn't ignore that obvious of an infraction (even if it is a judgement call).

The NFHS did. Case book play 8.1.1SitA says that the ball is live when it is caught by the FT thrower, or after the official has placed it on the floor.

What has my position concerning unsporting conduct have to do with the <b>violation</b> being discussed?:confused:

As I already said, technical fouls are judgment calls. Whether you or I personally agree with an official's judgment as to whether a "T" should have been called isn't relevant to this discussion. Ignoring a violation that has <b>already</b> been committed is a whole 'nother matter. You might be able to argue whether a violation did or did not occur, but when you have video evidence that one actually did, you no longer have that option open imo.

Again, what a coach did or didn't do has got nothing at all to do anyway with whether there a violation committed on the play being discussed.

I have an NFHS rulebook at my desk and Rule 8:1 ART1 and Caseplay 8:1:1 Sit A specifically says the ball is placed at the disposal of the free thrower when it is bounced by the administering official.

It's interesting that the books use that language in 8-1 and 8.1.1 because in 4-4-7, the word "disposal" is defined very specifically. The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is:

a. Handed to a thrower or free thrower
b. Caught by a player after it is bounced to him/her
c. Placed on the floor at the spot
d. Available to a player after a goal.

Notice that nowhere does it say the ball is at a player's disposal when it is bounced. It specifically says that it's at the player's disposal when it is caught.

I see the point that you're making about the case play, but I think strictly speaking, the ball is live and is at the free thrower's disposal ONLY when it is caught.

4-4-7B can be applied to a throw in as well, because I do administer some of my throw-ins with a bounce, but....

Verbatim Rule 8 Sec 1 Art 1: When a free throw is awarded, the ball shall be placed at the disposal of the free thrower (bounced) by the administering official and the free throw count shall begin. <(Period)

I guess IREF was correct when he said:

Originally Posted by IREFU2
NFHS needs to also clarify the ruling of at the disposal of the free thrower. Once place it says bounced and in another it says bounced and caught.

In this case, 4-4-7 prevails. 8-1 and 8.1.1 are simply stating that the method of getting the ball to the player is by bouncing it to him/her. (8.1.1 specifically references 4-4-7b and says that the ball is live when it is caught by the free thrower.)

My guess is that that 8.1.1 - stating that bouncing is the correct procedure - came into play when the officials' manual was changed so that the L would administer free throws, rather than the C/T. I do agree that it could be a bit clearer semantically.

I agree with you that it could be a bit clearer. The FED could take notes from the NCAA and be SPECIFIC with their disposal definition..."Caught by the thrower-in or the free thrower after its bounced to him or her." And after reading their rule, I guess that's the intent of the FED as well. Maybe Ms. Struckhoff can correct that in the near future..

There's no need to clarify anything. Casebook play 8.1.1SitA says that that the ball becomes live when it <b>caught</b> by the free thrower. Rule 6-1-2(c) also says that the ball becomes live when it it is at the <b>disposal</b> of the free thrower.

Ergo, "caught" = "disposal".

That was exactly my thought, too, Mark.

P.S. -- Did you get my PM?

Once the play had been clearly described (I didn't see that game) I said the violation was the right call.

If an official saw the player outside the space and whistled or the recognized that they were going to make the ball dead before it was made live but didn't have the whistle ready, it still assert that it is not a violation...since the officials recognition of an event is how/when the live/dead ball is determined.

That is completely correct. The NFHS mechanics changed and rules had to evolve to reflect that. However, most of the language was simply held over. Thus the perceived contradiction.