NCAA v NFHS Free Throw Lane Violation
 

Just got a memo from my NCAA supervisor who had observed several scrimmages. One of the comments he made was this: 7. Defensive players in the first lane space during foul shots are not permitted to put their arm in front of the player in the second lane space.

At first my reaction was, "where does it say that?", as I am certain that is not the rule in the NFHS (case book 9.1.3 Situation L confirms). So, I go to the NCAA rule book and sure enough rule 9, Art 2.h. states: Players occupying any of the legal marked lane spaces on ech side of the lane may break the vertical plan of a lane-space boundary once the free-thrower has released the ball. Art 2.i. seems to be redundant, but contains language similar to NFHS pertaining to not having either foot break the boundry line (isn't the foot part of a player...?)

My point/question - this doesn't appear to be new; has it ever been enforced? Or have I just been uninformed for 20+ years. Further investigation reveals that the language in the rule book has not changed significantly for 15 years, but a case book play existed from 1993 to 1998 (only books i have in my office) reads as follows:
Rule 9 Section 1. Play 2: Before a free throw is released, a player in the second lane space extends his or her arms over the area between the lane spaces. RULING: Legal if there is no contact.

Is my supervisor incorrect?

Your supervisor is your boss. If he/she tells you that they want something called a certain way, then you better call it that way. Why even ask if your supervisor is "wrong".

Because that's how you keep stupid people from enforcing stupid things that aren't in the rules.

Rocky,

Just blindly following something your superior tells you, and not being able to have dialog for fear of retaliation, is a dictatorship. If his supervisor insists that this is what should be done, and you have it in writing, then by all means go ahead. But it would be unethical not to at least bring such a concern up. In the end you did what you could and if it ever comes down to it this is squarely on one's persons shoulder.

Its not a huge deal but I personally would be uncomfortable without at least attempting to reason with the person. In the end this is very minor, and if anyone makes a stink about it just point them to your boss and say to take it up with him.

Most jobs are dictatorships; like it or not. Whether they take input or not is generally up to them, not the constitution.

"This is how the conference wants it called" may be a valid response, but my guess is the boss would quickly tire of the tread marks and a better response would be in order.

As for the OP, if you feel you must ask your supervisor what he's thinking, I'd suggest a passive approach such as, "Can you show me the rule so I can understand it?"

OTOH, it's not as if he's telling them to move all the players across the division line for technical foul free throws.

Most jobs are dictatorships because most people don't have the cojones to stand up to their superiors when they come up with lame-brained excuses. No different here.

You and I may be defining this differently, but my main point is you can have all the balls you want to have, if the boss still decides differently, that's how it is. By dictatorship, I simply meant a system in which the decisions get made from the top down rather than by majority vote.

My boss lets me give all the input I want, but the decision is still hers. My guess is that an assigner who makes the statement in the OP is sure of himself.

If the issue is that much of a moral dilemma for someone, by all means, challenge him and deal with the consequences. Many officials have done this, some on this board, with other issues.

If it's somewhere between "who cares" and "moral dilemma," then your approach is going to depend on the personality of the assigner in question.

And that's how mouthy officials end up being dropped from conferences.

And I'm guessing I have more experience with that notion than you do! :eek:

This exact discussion came up in our local HS study session last week.
We have submitted the question to our state rep on the NFHS rules committee for an answer.
When we hear back from him, I'll let all of you know his response.
We may see a formal ruling from the NFHS on this manner in the very near future.

At being a mouthy official ? :D

Game...


Set....




MATCH to Nevada!!!!!!

Taking this a step farther...
If the adjacent players are "arm wrestling" and there is contact...is it a foul or a violation?

Depends on who wins? and are we playing Alabama rules or Russian Submission?

MS girls game this was happening. My partner and I started game out talking in lane telling girls "no hands" etc to try and put a stop to this. Then we remembered it was MS girls game. :rolleyes:

So, the next time it happened and they were wrangling - partner calls a double foul. Amazingly both coaches smiled and one thanked him. Said he's tried talking to them till his tongue swelled up but they won't listen.

Went to AP. Didn't have a problem like that the rest of the game.

Why the AP? I assume this happened while A1 had the ball -- so the POI would be still the FT.

Maybe it was 5 years ago?

Or maybe the shooter had already shot the ball. (Team control ends on any shot attempt, no?)

The first...the second is not a name that has ever been applied to me that I know of.
And see, I even added a smilie just like you did! :D

He had bounced the ball to shooter and backed away. Ball was released from shooter's hand and was almost at the basket when I heard his whistle. We determined that since the try had started, but not been completed there was no team control and therefore no POI.

I was a little surprised by the timing of the whistle - but we came together and he explained what his whistle was for ..... I told him the ball had left the shooter's hand and that's why we went AP.

Got it (assuming the try was unsuccessful).

I'm just not sure a double foul at this poijnt really addresses the "hand fighting" before the try is released -- but it apparently worked in your case.

That's why I was surprised with the timing of the whistle. I guess I would have expected that it would come earlier, and perhaps then, the foul if called would be on the player who originally initiated the contact and not a double foul. My thinking was, and we discussed this post game, that you call it early as they are jousting for the hand position prior to the shot, or not at all.

In any case, he blew the whistle, made the call and we had to sort out how to put ball back into play. After the game and our discussion we felt we got it right under the circumstances - but agreed that this sit. won't likely happen again in this manner. We thought we were lucky that this took care of the situation that night - BUT - it could have led to more problems, fouls, double fouls etc just as easily. To be consistent - if we called it early - we would have to call the same thing throughout the game and we all know there is this type of "gamesmanship" that occurs at nearly every game. In my experience - expecially girl's games. :(

When I coached - I always told my girl's to keep their hands low, step in towards defender and up lane and box out. Then when ball came off basket or board to explode upwards, using hands for power and secure the ball in the air. No pattycake or slap and tickle!

The timing of the whistle is not important. The fundamentals of the rules state that the ball is dead at the time of the foul(s), unless there is a try in flight. Check #13 and #16.
So if the thrower still had the ball when the contact which your partner deemed to be worthy of a double foul occurred, then the POI should have been that FT attempt. It would be readministered.

The point I was making was that there WAS a try in flight.

Is a free throw a try? My initial response is, "Duh, of course." But the definition of a try says: "A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket."

So is a free throw really a try? And does the "try in flight" provision apply?

Oh, wow. Could this be an unintended loophole in the team control rules? If this is not a try, team control continues until the ball is dead or the defense gets the rebound. It could affect the administration of rebounding fouls.

Well, I am saying it is a try, because if I say that it is just a "throw", I believe a pass would also be a "throw" and technically a try is also a "throw". Technically the motions for a "try" and a "free throw" are extrememly similar if not identical but the motions for a pass and a free throw or a pass and a try could be extremely different and if I am going to go that far with all that thinking I believe there will now be far too too many worms in the can.

It's Friday afternoon and I have been with far toooooooooo many middle school students in a small room too long today!!!!!!!

It would also mean that the three second rule is in effect during rebounding. For the good of humanity, I'm officially un-asking my question. The consequences are just too ghastly to imagine! :eek:

Maybe you guys need to read the definition of a free throw (4-20-1): "A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the semi-circle and behind the free throw line."

Also, 4-20-3 states, "The free throw ends when the try is successful, when the try touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead."

So, the world really isn't becoming unhinged after all. :)

Yes, it's a try. It's not a try for FIELD GOAL.

Whew! I'm feeling better about things now.

Good. Hate to see you going into a weekend feeling all queasy and out of sorts.

Killjoy

You cut me so deeply

Hey, you two: get a room and hash out your issues.

Post the video, please. :D

Well, crap. Now I'm the one feeling queasy and out of sorts. :D

You cut me so deeply.

Killjoy.

Hey, you two: get a room and hash out your issues.

Post the video, please. :D

Alright, now I'm confused.

We're not all in the same room, are we? :eek:

My head is spinning; so maybe.