High Dribble

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

So did the NFHS:

9.2.5 Situation: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.
Ruling: A violation in both (a) and (b).
Comment: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

I agree with Nevaderef on this situation. Boundary line calls are pretty much black and white.

However, how about the following violations, Nevadaref? Would you call them every time they occur, keeping in mind the Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, the Tower philosophy, the level of play, the time remaining in the game, and the score (middle school, blowout, 20 seconds left)? Or would you "make the teams play within the constructs of the rules"?

1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

Unlike the black and white, as defined by a NFHS case book play, boundary line rules, I believe that these rules present gray areas, also known as Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, advantage/disadvantage, and the the Tower philosophy, to the officials assigned in that game.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

1. My take is that ten is long enough. If I have a good count going, which I confess that I may not have every single time on this play, I think I would make the call if I ever reached ten, which has never happened in 22 years. If you're gonna give him eleven, why not 12? Why not 13? I say 10 is plenty.

2. One of the first things I learned many years ago is that if you keep a close watch on three seconds, you won't see much of anything else. I rarely have a count on a lane violation, but merely observe that a player has been there
"too long." I think it is natural to give more slack to a player standing passively at the free throw line than to the player who is actively working for position deep in the paint to box out or post up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. My take is that ten is long enough. If I have a good count going, which I confess that I may not have every single time on this play, I think I would make the call if I ever reached ten, which has never happened in 22 years. If you're gonna give him eleven, why not 12? Why not 13? I say 10 is plenty. 2. One of the first things I learned many years ago is that if you keep a close watch on three seconds, you won't see much of anything else. I rarely have a count on a lane violation, but merely observe that a player has been there "too long." I think it is natural to give more slack to a player standing passively at the free throw line than to the player who is actively working for position deep in the paint to box out or post up.

Thanks for your straightforward, honest, practical answers to my questions. Please note that I never said in my post what the calls should be, all I said is that there may be "gray areas" open to interpretation, which may mean different interpretations made by different officials, also depending on the level of the game, score, and time remaining.

One picky point. I've been officiating for 27 years and have observed free throw shooters going past the ten count, even a slow ten count, many, maybe many, many times. Unless you're a rookie official, which by your intelligent, and educational, posts, I believe that you are not, I can't believe that you've never had a player go over a slow ten count.

[Adam]

Billy, maybe it's a regional thing, but I've never seen it in the two regions I've worked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, maybe it's a regional thing, but I've never seen it in the two regions I've worked.

It ???

Never seen the violation called, or never seen a free throw shooter take longer than ten seconds real time, or ten hand flicks, to release the try?

I've never seen the violation called, I've never called the violation, but I personally have gotten up to twelve hand flicks several times without calling the violation, and know of partners, and others on my local board that I have observed, who have done the same thing. How long would I continue to count, and flick, without blowing my whistle? I don't know, I haven't gotten there yet, twleve is probably the highest I've gotten to, but I'm sure I'll know, or hope I'll know, when it happens.

[Adam]

My count's probably a bit slow on this one, but I honestly don't remember ever getting to 10. It may have happened once, but I don't recall.
I've also never seen it called by another official.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

However, how about the following violations, Nevadaref?
...
1) A free throw shooter uses eleven seconds before releasing his, or her shot.
2) A player gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow.

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. My take is...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevaderef: Thanks for your straightforward, honest, practical answers to my questions.

Please don't confuse me with JAR.

My answer to your questions is that situations that do not involve a timing device, a line painted on the court, or a clear, observable act by a player will be handled with some leniency simply because individuals count at different speeds or focus upon different aspects of play. So for your specific examples:
1. I tend to count to ten fairly slowly on a FT attempt.
2. I probably do not notice a player who is lost in the FT lane for a couple of seconds because I am focused on the players who are not running around with their heads cut off and are making an important play. The munchkin at the side of the lane with one foot in it is likely out of my field of vision, but even if I do observe this player, my count is likely less precise.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For those who argue not to make such a call, I would direct you to the very similar situation in which the thrower violates while making a throw-in from the backcourt endline. For years there were numerous officials who advocated ignoring such violations, but the NCAA came out a couple of seasons ago with a clear statement that these violations must be called regardless of whether or not there is defensive pressure.

The bottom line is that as an official it is your job to make the teams play within the constructs of the rules. Doing otherwise is unacceptable.

You seem to be softening by the grey phrase 'within the constructs of the rules', at least I read it that way.

End line inbounds violation after a basket with no pressure can be an advantage to team A as they are trying to run in quick transition.


So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

So, regarding my original question about player with deformed 'fist', violation or not?

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Or maybe a windmill?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I vote for "not". Just like I wouldn't expect a cop to give a parking ticket to a handicapped driver using a handicapped parking space.

This is a non sequitur (or maybe a strawman).

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Or maybe a windmill?

Where? Let me at it!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Well, I certainly wouldn't either. There has to be a level of common sense.

It's a basketball court, not a court of law.

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

Hence why I ignored his 3rd world hypothetical.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

True enough, but my point is that we make allowances for handicapped all the time in the interest of fairness.

We don't make those allowances, however, for individuals who are not handicapped.

Not the best analogy, admittedly.

Snags I do agree with your point. When I made the court reference it was not directed at you, your analogy was a good one.
The player in question to my knowledge never had the violation called on him. Obviously he used his other hand predominantly and would occasionally do a crossover with bad hand.

"A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below."

Definition of strike "to deliver a sharp blow, as with the hand, fist, or weapon"

Does this constitute a sharp blow?

I know how I'd call it.