This may not be exciting to you veterans out there, but last night was the first time I was challenged on a rule by the coaches.

A1 shooting a freethrow, and before the ball hits the rim, A2 moves one leg into the air over the lane, without the foot touching the floor--just balancing there getting ready to go after the rebound. The shot goes in, but I wave it off.

Both A coaches tell me (politely, by the way) that they've never heard that rule. I confidently tell them the foot can't cross the plane of the line. Actually, I wasn't confident until I reread 9-1-9 this morning!

Do you think we should be making those kind of calls? There are plenty of obvious calls to make during the game without looking for calls.

Bart,

It was pretty obvious. He wasn't just barely over the line--he had the leg as far out in the lane as he could get it. I didn't describe it well in my original post. Definite advantage if the shot is missed.

I believe I agree with you that I'm not looking to see whether or not they come into lane a split-second too soon. This one was not close and would have provided a significant advantage in going for the rebound.

What about the hands and arms? I would venture to say almost every FT as a breaking of the plane.

9-1-9
 

Bart, the rule specifies the feet:
"A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary..."

Stick your arms, torso, head, tongue or whatever out as far as you want, but keep those feet where they belong! ;-)

Bard, you got me there. However, i think this can fall under the common sense rule( and i don't mean this is a disrespectfull way). this can open a can of worms. You may get a coach, fans, etc. who will start yelling everytime it appears like a violation.

I think one way to look at this play is by using the advantage-disadvantage theory. Since the free throw was good, there was no advantage gained by A2 leaning early. Had the free throw not gone in, you could have blown the whistle right away and called it. This takes away the advantage that he had by moving early. You would still have to explain it to the coach in this case, but probably a good no-call if the shot goes in. You may then warn the player about it, so that he knows that you are aware of him moving early. If it happens again, you have this to go back on.
Any other thoughts?

Dave - that's a good way to approach this. I must say that if this had resulted in A getting an advantage in any way on a missed shot, you have to call it. Made shot, you decide.

"If the violation is by the free thrower or a teammate only, the ball becomes dead when the violation occurs and no point can be scored by that throw."

Here's my take on this situation. It's not something we see in the higher levels. It's an attempt to gain an advantage. Let's enforce the blatant attempt to get in the lane early at the low levels so they know what this rule is. The rule book is clear, see above, on what the penalty is. The kid I had last night knows the rule and will never get called for it again.

Bart-
I know what you are saying about the way the rule is written. But I think that you can be somewhat flexible on certain rules. If you called everything strictly by the book, you would burn out your whistle.
I think your comment that this is an attempt to gain an advantage is right on. But since the shot went in, he did not gain any advantage, as there was no rebound. No advantage, no call. Right or wrong, this is just my personal take on it.

Dave; I agree with you in this situation. I think that you put yourself in a tough position when you take the advantage/disadvantage theory away. I would hate to take the points away from team A. I understand what the rule actually reads, but feel it's a officials judgement whether to take the point away or wait with the call. The ultimate question was there 'really that advantage gained by him leaning in early'? Doesn't this also apply to the shooter during a free throw????

Bard,

It sounds like you are a reletivly new official. I think what everyone is saying, is this:

There are a lot of places during a game where the howler mokeys are presented with an opportunity to, well howl. Block/charges, travels, obvious stuff you have to call, and you take your 50% of disagreement.

This situation is one where you need to learn a happy medium to avoid unncessary conflict. Were you right by the book, yes. Could you have held your whistle, probably. Unless an obvious advantage is gained, let it go. You will be the only one in the gym who knows the rule, as you learned last night.

How many times during a game do the subs come in before we "officially" beckon them. Do you T them each time? Could you, yes, but is it wise?

I think you've got to decide to call it & then call it
right away or decide that you are *not* going to call it
regardless of whether it goes in or not, and regardless of
who gets the rebound. If you apply ad/disad then you've
got to blow the whistle if the violating player somehow
helps his team get the rebound, which means a *very* late
whistle (not that I have anything against late whistles,
I just save them for when they are deserved). Any decent
coach will question you on this, and you really have no
good answer for a late whistle in this case, IMO. I
think Bard made a good decisive call and was able to back it
up by the rules, which is our job. Good work!

If you're going to let this go, then let it go. But - do not treat the same as a delayed call on the non-shooting team. If you decide to call it because it went it, or don't call it because the shot missed, it will appear you do not know the difference between how violations are to be handled for shooting vs. non-shooting teams.

Either blow the whistle as soon as it happens, or let it go completely, based on your judgement. Don't use the delayed call based on the success of the shot. It will just undermine your credibility.

Ya know, I didn't think I was starting a discussion on this topic. I was just glad I had the rule right! But since we're at it, let me ask another question for clarification on where y'all stand.

If, instead of sticking his whole leg in the lane like he did (sort of doing the hokey-pokey), he actually planted his foot on the floor in the lane before the ball hit the rim, do you blow the whistle?

If you call this in the 2nd scenario and not the 1st, what's the difference? Do you call it if A2 is in the lane before the ball leaves the shooter's hand and not while the ball's in the air?

I appreciate the discussion and the feedback. I'm just trying to get better.