Free Throw Lane Violation

[wbrown]

Sorry I upset you but if you look at my post. This was posted by the PIAA who governs the high school rules in Pennsylvania. I have since contacted them in hopes of getting a correction or retraction.

[Fritz]

Another violation I see at the younger levels a bit is the one where their body is leaning into the lane after they release and eventually their foot breaks the plane. Not always easy to tell if the foot broke the plane before the ball got to the basket or board. So I figure don't blow the whistle unless the shooter is CLEARLY in violation.

But another question/violation that I see called inconsistently: if a players has any part of their foot touching the "black" of a lane marking (or the shooting stripe), is it a violation? Or do they need to be touching on the "other" side for it to be a violation?

My understanding of the rule is the lane includes all markings (other than the lines between the spaces), similar to an out-of-bounds line. Therefore, touch the lane marking and it is a violation. But I've worked with a number of partners who see the shooter and players as being "out-of-bounds" so to speak, and must cross the lane marking for a violation.

Comments?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Another violation I see at the younger levels a bit is the one where their body is leaning into the lane after they release and eventually their foot breaks the plane. Not always easy to tell if the foot broke the plane before the ball got to the basket or board. So I figure don't blow the whistle unless the shooter is CLEARLY in violation.

But another question/violation that I see called inconsistently: if a players has any part of their foot touching the "black" of a lane marking (or the shooting stripe), is it a violation? Or do they need to be touching on the "other" side for it to be a violation?

My understanding of the rule is the lane includes all markings (other than the lines between the spaces), similar to an out-of-bounds line. Therefore, touch the lane marking and it is a violation. But I've worked with a number of partners who see the shooter and players as being "out-of-bounds" so to speak, and must cross the lane marking for a violation.

Comments?

Your partners' analogy to being OOB is incorrect.

1-5-1

"... All lines designating the free-throw lane, but not lane-space marks and neutral-zone marks, are part of the lane."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CoachP

36" x 36" does sound big...how does 3' x 3' sound?

Six of one. Half dozen of the other.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by wbrown

I have to disagree with you comment about not-so-knowledgeable officials.

Lane Violations will occur more frequently now that we have moved everyone further from the end line. The offensive players in the second lane spaces will try to hook around the defensive players in the first lane spaces. There is more room to use that maneuver. Remember the ball must strike the basket before anyone moves from his/her lane space. Also, each person must keep his/her entire body in his/her own vertical plane which is 3-foot wide. Arms, legs and torso must stay within that plane.

Originally Posted by wbrown

IMO he did not disconcert the FT shooter. But how deep is the lane space. I thought it was 36 inches wide and 12 inches deep but I am not positive.

Congratulations. You have just shown yourself to be one of those "not-so-knowledgeable" officials.

Hopefully, you will stick around here for a while and we can help you out. It is an eye-opening experience when you discover that what you thought that you knew for sure isn't correct.

As for the PIAA play ruling about a player who tries to "hook around" the opponent in the next lane space, I believe that it is unclear what the author means by "hook around." If he means with the arm, then he is incorrect, but if he is attempting to describe movement with the leg, then he has the right concept as that would mean that the player put a foot outside of the vertical plane of his lane space.