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.

Different Animal, now you have an obvious violation that you no longer haveto explain. I know it sounds like we are splitting hairs, and maybe you need to learn for yourself, but trust us, hold the whistle on the first play.

Call what you really need to, and if it just one player going early and it's obvious, call it.

Tricky thing, these lane violations. My son noted a couple of years ago on a Gonzaga HS (DC) poster, there was a picture of a Gonzaga player shooting a free throw, ball clearly in flight just following release, and 6 players in lane as though it was college. I'm betting it was a no-call! (I was just impressed that he saw the same thing I did!)

The HS rule was changed from on-the-release to on-the-rim
not so long ago. Maybe 4 years? 5 years?

"Different Animal, now you have an obvious violation that you no longer haveto explain. I know it sounds like we are splitting hairs, and maybe you need to learn for yourself, but trust us, hold the whistle on the first play."

I disagree on this, Brian. The violation is clear in both situations. Granted, I have the advantage of having seen the play. Holding the toe 6 inches off the floor or having it on the floor is irrelevant. Even a 5th grader can hold his leg 1-2' into the lane. That's obvious.

At any rate, I may never see the play again--certainly not from the same kid!

Bard- this somewhat a different play but let me try to help you see where we are coming from. We are jsut here to try and help you, and let you soak in our experience.

This happened last year to me:

Player A1 throws a long bomb to sprinting player A2 trying to beat the press. Ball goes a little off and B1 who is running with, then beating A2 up the floor, get a hand on it but it goes OOB. Now, I have blown my whistle and just as I start to signal, B stops on a dime and A2 trys to stop but runs him over. Now this is a freshman game, I call a personal foul on A2. Everyone saw it, no one said a word.

Now what is wrong with this picture? I should have called a T, because it technically was a dead ball period. I figure myself and my partner are the only two in the gym who know the rule, so why make life hard on ourselves by calling the T.

After the game a gentleman who is an "evaluator" for a local league, there to watch his grandson play, comes down from the bleachers and tears me a new one about ignoring rules. Now, he was right by the book, but I still think common sense wise I made the best decision. I am not one to tell someone to disregard a rule, but you need to make the call that is best for the situation. If I had called the T I would have had to explain it to a coach who still would think I am wrong, and had to deal with him the rest of the game. Eventhough the book says it was a T, I don't think it would not have been the best call. If this was Varsity would I have called it different, maybe. But, did that kid really need to be sanctioned with a technical foul on a bang-bang play because he couldn't stop as fast as the other kid?? No.

PS - Turns out there were three people in the gym who knew the right call...

Brian, I'd tend to let your kind of play go. Ball is dead, so the contact can't have an effect on the play. I'd hesitate to call this intentional (or flagrant) and give the T, because the kid wasn't accelerating.

What is wrong with this picture is that you didn't tell us if you felt the contact was intentional or flagrant. If not, you don't have a technical but a no-call.

I agree with your call in that situation, Brian, unless you have a "no call" on the foul. I'm not disputing the need for common sense. I don't, however, see a difference between the foot that's over the line touching the floor or just being held there waiting for the ball to hit the rim. Crossing the plane is crossing the plane. The kid might as well learn that in the 6th grade than look like an awkward flamingo once he's in high school. (Did I mention his foot was well across the line????)

I think part of why I am enjoying officiating is the intricacies of the rules and the challenge of applying them to real situations on the spur-of-the-moment. It makes doing the games interesting and these discussions the next day informative and useful.

I agree with Mark...if the foul occured during a dead ball and it wasn't intentional or flagrant, by rule we are to ignore the contact.

Dan

The kid got leveled (it was a lot of lb's on an awkward teenager rumbling up the floor). Did I think it was intentional or flagrant, no. Did I have to call a foul, I think yes, it would fall under the obvious catagory. Maybe you had to see it, I can't ever recall a similar play. My partner agreed with me after the game, a foul had to be called, it just didn't require a sledghammer.

[Edited by Brian Watson on Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:19 PM]

I think I understand now. Well before the shooter released the ball, the player put his foot forward to "block out" the opposing player. Is that right? IF so, I agree, it's a violation.

OTOH, if the foot was in the air after the ball was released and a fraction of a second before the ball hit the rim, well, let's just say that you have better eyes than I. ;)

BRIAN
 

Looks like a proper decision on this play. Some officials seem to struggle with the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". As Bard mentioned, "...officiating is the intricacies of the rules and the challenge of applying them to real situations on the spur-of-the-moment." Part of that challenge is knowing how they fit into the game.

My interpretation of this scenario is a no call. The ball going out of bounds causes it to become dead. The contact after the whistle should be ignored unless it is flagrant or intentional. It doesn't sound like either to me. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

I still disagree with the call. If you didn't think it was intentional or flagrant then by rule it is not a foul. Just because there is contact and just because it is obvious in your opinion does not make it a foul.

Here's a similar play that happened to me a few weeks back. A1 is driving to the basket. On his way to the hoop he carries the ball. I immediately blow the whistle for the violation. A1's momentum carries him into B1. They both fall to the ground in a heap. Both coaches are up and yelling by this time. A's coach wants a block call on B1. B's coach wants a PC call on A1. I come up with the carry violation and we go the other way. Here I am with nobody in the stands agreeing with me. Was there obvious contact? yes. Was any of it flagrant or intentional? No. I'm not going to make up something to please some coach or some evaluator in the stands. I also believe a call like this is supported by both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

You did perfectly.

Waiting to see whether the FT goes in before making the call is nonsense. Either there is a violation or there isn't.

Just like you are OOB or IB, we don't wait to call it based on what you do after stepping out.

This discussions reminds me...
 

...of something that's been nagging me for a while.

Here's NCAA Rule 9-1.2:

g . 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. (See Rule 8-1.)
h . Players occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of space (2 x 36 inches) designated by a lane space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the lane until the ball is released by the free-thrower.

Note that part (h) is new this year.

My question: Why is part (h) in there at all? It seems to just repeat what is already covered by part (g), but only for feet. (Why say that a player may break the plane on release unless they are not allowed to before the release?)

A variation on the same theme: What about players who stick their arms into an opponent's lane or into the paint before a free throw? Do you say anything? What if two players are playing the arm slap game?

What's your opinion?

I believe they wrote the rule that way because they wanted to be clear that even if you were in an "illegal" lane space, you still may not violate the planes.

It would have been simpler to just totally re-write (g).

As far as contact, let the incidental go, and don't allow anything that you wouldn't normally allow between two opponents when neither has the ball.

Once the shot goes up, any "slapping" might be a foul.


[Edited by Slider on Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:37 PM]