NCAA v NFHS Free Throw Lane Violation

[CallMeMrRef]

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?

[rockyroad]

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".

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

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!

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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!

At being a mouthy official ?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

At being a mouthy official or a quiet coward?

Game...


Set....




MATCH to Nevada!!!!!!

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

At being a mouthy official ?

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!

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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".

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.

[Adam]

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Most jobs are dictatorships; like it or not.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.