Use of the word "allowance" in NFHS rule 9-7-3...?
 

9-7-3: Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than 3 seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for goal.

And just what is the "allowance"? $10 a week?

Seriously, what is my allowance (which seems like such a subjective term) as opposed to your allowance for a player that "dribbles in... to try for goal" after already being in lane for <3 seconds?

I'm imagining a player already in lane for <3 seconds, receiving ball, and then "backing down" his opponent as he moves toward the goal... a process that could take several long seconds, indeed.

Nonetheless, per the rule above, the player is "dribbling in... to try for goal".

Or he could "move immediately". The rule seems to give two options for approaching the goal with the ball after already occupying the lane.

Thanks,
Paul

You're imagining wrong. You allow the player with the ball to <b>immediately</b> shoot it....either going straight up right away without any fakes, or driving and <b>immediately</b> shooting. There's no backing down or fakes of any kind, etc. If they don't <b>immediately</b> shoot in one fluid connected motion, you call the violation. If they pass instead of shooting, you call the violation.

<b>"Immediately"</b> is the key word.

Note that the "moves immediately to try for goal" might include a dribble.

Disagree.

If the player is trying to score (pump fake / pivot one-way and step through, etc), then allow it.

I agree that if the ball is passed out of the lane, then it's a violation.

As soon as he pulls the ball down on the pump fake, he's no longer trying to score. Violation.

The pivot/step-through is part of the continuous motion of the try. Legal.

What I think I am reading in your replies is that upon receipt of ball the player must move immediately regardless of dribble or stationary shot attempt.

But... the rule doesn't say "dribbles in AND moves immediately", it says "dribbles in OR moves immediately".

Its that "OR" part of this rule that leaves a lot to be defined.
It seems to give the player the option to either 1) dribble in to try for goal; OR, 2) move immediately to try for goal.

With that being said, the rule would "allow" a player already in lane for <3 seconds to receive the ball and then "back down" his opponent as he "dribbles in" toward the goal.

I am really trying to not "read too much into the rules," nor split hairs. However, there is clearly an "OR" in that rule and not an "AND".

Plus, using an unquantified expression like "Allowance shall be made..." leaves the door open to have varying interpretations and outcomes for this type of lane play.

Thanks,
Paul

Disagree.

Agree.

Disagree.

:D

The backing down just doesn't fit the intent of the rule, IMO. The player may shoot, or make a move to shoot, but a slow "back down" is not a move to score nor a dribble in to score. It is a dribble in to get a different position which may or may not give a good attempt to score.

Again, this is a judgement call for you as an official.

So to "dribble in," he's not allowed to have his back to the basket? I must have missed that part of the rule. :confused:

He said a "slow back down". You missed that part of the post.

A slow back down is <b>not</b> an <b>immediate</b> move for goal imo either. As he said, it's trying to gain a better position to shoot from.

I just don't see a "back-down" as part of a scoring move, and that's how I interpret the rule and how I'm interpreting the term "back-down" as well.

There are ways a player can dribble with his/her back to the basket that would be part of a move to score, and those would qualify under the exception IMO. Again, it's a judgement call, and the only point I'm making is that a multiple dribble "slow" back-down does not qualify under the exception.

If it did, a player could back down from the FT line to the goal with a dozen dribbles over 5 seconds...

Which is my entire issue with the way this rule is written.
Too much is left to individual interpretation.

The rule does not say "dribbles in immediately", "immediately dribbles in", nor "dribbles and moves immediately."

It gives two options: either to dribble in OR move immediatley to try for goal.

But, I think we may all agree that backing-down is not in the spirit (whatever that means) of how this rule is written and intended to be administered... even though backing-down is still a form of dribbling in to try for goal.

:)

Evidently BOTH of you missed the part of the rule that says "dribbles in OR moves immediately to try for goal."

The rule does NOT say "dribbles in immediately to try for goal," now does it?

If a player backs down for 5 seconds, there is a rule that covers that one as well...( Closely Guarded)

If he is backing a player down there is closely guarded. ...

Use some judgement but it wont be hard... the max he will have the ball in the paint after he has caught it is 5.....

I believe ( I am not an English Major) that the immediately modifies both the dribbles in or moves part of the book.

Read my interpretation as dribble or a move that goes to the basket immediately.

I think you are reading too much into the rule. He is in the paint and gets the ball. He has to go to the basket or shoot MULTIPLE moves, fakes, etc dont work.because that is not immediate. ( I normally let them fake once... but more than that is too much)

Amen.

:)

Evidently you are wrong. I know what the rule says.

However, I read it to be that he must either dribble in immediately or move immediately to try for a goal. The application of immediately is unclear. And I just don't interpret a back-down dribble (at least how I'm picturing) to be dribbling in to try for a goal. I interpret dribble in immediately as meaning an "action" move, not a "work to get myself in position so then I can decide to shoot" move.

So, you'll allow a player to be in the paint for 2.5 seconds near the free throw line, then back his way down for an additional 4.5 seconds, then pick up the ball, pump fake, and shoot?

Are you saying that the language is stating that the word "immediately" only applies to trying for goal? If so, I disagree. My interpretation is that you have to either immediately dribble in or you have to immediately try for goal.

It doesn't say that though, does it? :D

PSidbury, we've debated this time and time again on this forum. The truth is the NFHS has never defined it for us. I would just say don't go outside the standard that is used in your area. Discuss it at your local clinics and see how others are calling it and what your supervisor says. There's a lot of room for judgment in this scenario.

What about AD/DAD? In some of the interpretations I have seen up to this point this puts the defense at a DAD.

If the defense allows the ball to get into the paint, they've placed themselves at a disadvantage. :)

I did not say that...previous posts talked about backing down and it taking 5 seconds. My point was that there are violations to cover that...

I expect player to immediately drive or shoot...

Agree
 

I agree. That's the way we've always been taught here in Connecticut.

This is a valid point :)

You can't apply the immediately to both the dribble and the try. It's either one or the other.

Let me enumerate the possibilities by expanding the OR:

1. (dribbles in immediately OR moves immediately) to try for goal
   • Doens't say the try has to be immediate
   • A dribble inward must be immediate (ending in a try)
     • the dribble hasn't been given a time limit or speed
   • a movement must be immediate (ending in a try)
     • such movement hasn't been given a time limit or speed
2. (dribbles in) OR (moves immediately) to try for goal
   • Doens't say the try has to be immediate
   • A dribble inward doesn't necessarily have to be immediate
   • • the dribble hasn't been given a time limit or speed
   • a non-dribble movement must be immediate (ending in a try)
3. (dribbles in OR moves) (immediately to try for goal)
   • Grammatical nonsense...for immediately to apply to the goal, it would have to appear in a different location....
     • to immediately try for a goal
     • to try for an immediate goal

As you can see, there is no way for the immedaite to be applied to the goal. The only sensible options are that the actions that precede the goal must begin by the 3 second mark and must continune to a point ending in a goal. If they cease, the allowance is lost.

How does this end up working....player in the lane just inside the FT line for 2.9 seconds and starts a dribble moving towards the basket. As long as that move continues towards the basket and ends in a try, there is no violation. If the player drives down the right side, gets stoped, and reverses to back across to the other side (or just stops), 3 seconds. As soon as they reverse directions, it's over. If they pump fake immediately to a shot, I'm not calling 3 seconds. If they pump fake and pause afterwards, violation. They get one chance to make a play.

Wanna bet I can't?

3 seconds is a call that the majority of officials view as a game interrupter. They would rather give the offensive player more than the allotted time to maintain a flow to the game. This is what I gather from the debate no one has come and and stated that yet.

In reality this is probably all a moot point anyway. I think it is highly unlikely that a player would be able to start a slow dribble and back someone down in the lane. This is normally a pretty congested area and if someone were to do this, I would expect that ball would be stolen or swatted away by another defender in pretty short order. Normally I see this type of play occur when player is on the low block, and even then defensive help usually arrives pretty darn quickly so the offensive player doesn't really get to enjoy a slow dribble to the basket. This is a good topic for conversation, but perhaps a different scenario would be more realistic.

You're rewriting the rule to fit your own belief then...something you repeatedly lambast others for doing. The grammar just doesn't support that no matter how you read it.

You're interpreting the language to fit your own belief...something that you repeatedly lambaste others for doing. The grammar just doesn't support that no matter how you read it.

:)

It isn't covered definitively. Deal with it. I have.