Player location during technical foul free-throw

[David]

In NF Rule 8-1-5 it says "Any player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space must be behind the free-throw line extended and behind the three-point line."

Does this rule apply to player location during a technical foul free-throw? Is it just tradition in Texas when we make all the players but the shooter go to the division line?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by David

In NF Rule 8-1-5 it says "Any player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space must be behind the free-throw line extended and behind the three-point line."

Does this rule apply to player location during a technical foul free-throw?

Yes.

Is it just tradition in Texas when we make all the players but the shooter go to the division line?

Yes. It's not required by rule.

[tjones1]

Is behind the division line a myth or did it used to be a rule?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Is behind the division line a myth or did it used to be a rule?

Long-standing myth....never a rule in my memory.

[JugglingReferee]

I've heard, more than once, from rookie officials, that the non-shooters have to retreat to half court. I think this one (the myth) might be partly perpetuated by officials.

I know that I'm guilty of verbalizing "half court". Here's why: it's much easier.

Sometimes you'll get a game where you'll make a T or INT call, and some player(s) do not know what to do. I've had them, and you probably have. Most of these the players figure it out soon enough.

However, that odd player that doesn't clue in right away... you could say to him "back up", or "move behind the 3-point line" (not accurate), or "move behind the 3-point line and above the free throw line extended" (which is accurate).

That one time every other year, "halfcourt, guys" works perfect. I admit that I have perpetuated this myth. Can I be forgiven?

[Jurassic Referee]

=JugglingReferee

That one time every other year, "halfcourt, guys" works perfect. I admit that I have perpetuated this myth. Can I be forgiven?

No.

One day you will run into the situation where one coach will be talking to his players at his bench, and the other coach is gonna be asking you why he can't do the same thing. And your reply is....?

It's much easier to just follow the rules.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No.

One day you will run into the situation where one coach will be talking to his players at his bench, and the other coach is gonna be asking you why he can't do the same thing. And your reply is....?

It's much easier to just follow the rules.

I use it too in cases where coaches (deliberately) "talk" to player(s) below the FTL in an effort to ice the shooter. The shooter deserves better, and when the coach is being a PITA, they will have to have me deal with your situation when it arises. By your approach, a coach ignoring the instruction is guilty of a T. I don't think you'd call it though. At least, I hope not.

IME, being too wordy has confused players and caused them to not understand what you said, causing the official to repeat themselves. Players often respond to officials' instructions that are direct. "Behind the free throw line" gives a player a direct thing to do. It's not as swift as "halfcourt", but it does meet both my and your concerns. I think I might try that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

IME, being too wordy has confused players and caused them to not understand what you said, causing the official to repeat themselves. Players often respond to officials' instructions that are direct. "Behind the free throw line" gives a player a direct thing to do. It's not as swift as "halfcourt", but it does meet both my and your concerns. I think I might try that.

I find just "move back" works fine. I've never had anyone stay below the FT line in that instance. If they want to believe that I meant the division line, that's okay, too. If they ask for clarification, I give it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I use it too in cases where coaches (deliberately) "talk" to player(s) below the FTL in an effort to ice the shooter. The shooter deserves better, and when the coach is being a PITA, they will have to have me deal with your situation when it arises. By your approach, a coach ignoring the instruction is guilty of a T. I don't think you'd call it though. At least, I hope not.

What's the difference in that scenario to a coach deliberately talking to his players above the ftl extended? Is one foot that big a deal? And it might be the OFFENSIVE coach that wants to talk to his players. How does that factor in? Sorry, Juggler, but I don't have a clue where you're coming from on this one.

And where do you get a technical foul out of my "approach"? It's a violation under rule 9-1, and always has been. That's why I'd never call a "T"....the rules won't let me.

Simple procedure. Call the rule as written and don't make up your own. You'll never get in trouble doing that. Jmo.

[Back In The Saddle]

I agree that this is a ref perpetuated myth. But I don't think it deserves a place on BillyMac's list. I actually prefer to have the players back at the half line; I think you get fewer problems that way. I won't attempt to enforce this non-rule. I will tell the players to "clear the lane" and "move back" as necessary. But I'm not volunteering any specifics. And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line.

Does that make me partially a bad man?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree that this is a ref perpetuated myth. But I don't think it deserves a place on BillyMac's list. I actually prefer to have the players back at the half line; I think you get fewer problems that way. I won't attempt to enforce this non-rule. I will tell the players to "clear the lane" and "move back" as necessary. But I'm not volunteering any specifics. And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line.

Does that make me partially a bad man?

Nope. You're not telling the players "half court" like Juggler recommends. All you're doing is making sure that the players conform to the actual rule. Big difference.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

...And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line...

BITS, I assume your speaking about a 2-man crew.

Shouldn't the non-administering official in a 2-man crew be positioned to watch the shooter just like any normal free throw while also putting her/himself in a position to monitor all the non-shooters?

[Ref_in_Alberta]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Is behind the division line a myth or did it used to be a rule?

Back year's ago, early 90's, when I started officiating under FIBA rules, players were required to stand at the divison line during technical foul free throws. Not anymore. The rule is the same as NCAA & FED, outside the 3-pt line & above the free throw line.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

BITS, I assume your speaking about a 2-man crew.

Shouldn't the non-administering official in a 2-man crew be positioned to watch the shooter just like any normal free throw while also putting her/himself in a position to monitor all the non-shooters?

Why can't he/she do both from the division line?? Standing there allows me to watch the shot and the benches and the players milling aimlessly around.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Why can't he/she do both from the division line??

Now that's one helluva ref... the ability to see that the FTers feet are behind FT line from the division line is what I need in my game.