The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Free throw violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/59640-free-throw-violation.html)

Indianaref Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 699943)
If a FT shooter loses his balance and touches the lane in front of his FT line with either the ball or a hand(s), is that a violation?

I could not find a violation on the FT shooter or any player located behind the 3 pt line.

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indianaref (Post 699945)
I could not find a violation on the FT shooter or any player located behind the 3 pt line.

Iow, we have 2 completely separate and conflicting rules philosophies?

Touching the floor outside a marked lane space constitutes leaving that marked lane space, but touching the floor outside the free-throw semicircle does not constitute leaving the semicircle and touching the floor inside the three-point arc does not constitute entering the area inside the arc.

Correct?

Indianaref Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 699947)
Iow, we have 2 completely separate and conflicting rules philosophies?

Touching the floor outside a marked lane space constitutes leaving that marked lane space, but touching the floor outside the free-throw semicircle does not constitute leaving the semicircle and touching the floor inside the three-point arc does not constitute entering the area inside the arc.

Correct?

Correct. Depends on what you are touching the floor with.

Edit: Foot breaking the plane would be the violation, which comes before the foot touching the floor.

Adam Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 699923)
Oh?

That statement is a direct contradiction of the actual rule which says:
NFHS rule 9-1-3d..."No player shall enter a marked lane space or <font color = red>leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the the 36-inch by 36-inch space</font>."

Methinks your thinking needs re-thinking. :D

Apparently, my memory wasn't clear. As Camron notes, this was an editorial clarification. I need to rethink this.

Camron Rust Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 699963)
Apparently, my memory wasn't clear. As Camron notes, this was an editorial clarification. I need to rethink this.

While you may have not explained it clearly, the result is the same. That editorial clarification clarified that touching the floor outside of a space you are limited to is the same as leaving that space. Being an editorial clarification, it can easily be extended to the parallel rule for the FT shooter that requires that the FT shooter not leave the semi-circle.

Adam Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 699967)
While you may have not explained it clearly, the result is the same. That editorial clarification clarified that touching the floor outside of a space you are limited to is the same as leaving that space. Being an editorial clarification, it can easily be extended to the parallel rule for the FT shooter that requires that the FT shooter not leave the semi-circle.

Agreed.

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 08, 2010 01:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 699963)
Apparently, my memory wasn't clear. As Camron notes, this was an editorial clarification. I need to rethink this.

Actually, it is new language in the rule book. The part about "contacting the court" isn't in the 2008-09 rule book in R9-1-3d but it's in there now. I'd check last year's but I can't find the damned thing.

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 08, 2010 01:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 699967)
That editorial clarification clarified that touching the floor outside of a space you are limited to is the same as leaving that space. Being an editorial clarification, it can easily be extended to the parallel rule for the FT shooter that requires that the FT shooter not leave the semi-circle.

One would think so, wouldn't one.

And also for someone outside the 3-point arc not to enter the arc by touching the court inside the arc.

jritchie Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:12am

So we are giving players lined up on a free throw a violation if they touch inside the the lane with their hand, but we aren't giving the free throw shooter a violation for the same thing??? Why does the Fed do that, that makes no sense to do something like that! What would be their reasoning to not give the free throw shooter the violation too?

Jurassic Referee Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jritchie (Post 700089)
So we are giving players lined up on a free throw a violation if they touch inside the the lane with their hand, but we aren't giving the free throw shooter a violation for the same thing???

Some of us are; some of us aren't. :)

Camron Rust Tue Nov 09, 2010 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jritchie (Post 700089)
So we are giving players lined up on a free throw a violation if they touch inside the the lane with their hand, but we aren't giving the free throw shooter a violation for the same thing??? Why does the Fed do that, that makes no sense to do something like that! What would be their reasoning to not give the free throw shooter the violation too?

I'm treating them the same. You touch outside of your desginated area, you've have left your designated area.

just another ref Tue Nov 09, 2010 03:05pm

I don't see how we can assume the same thing applies to the shooter when it is specified to be just for the players along the lane. My theory (someone may have information to the contrary) was that this was added to stop a player leaving the back of the space trying to come around to gain inside rebounding position.

Besides, has anyone ever seen the shooter lose his balance and touch the floor with his hand to regain it?

Jurassic Referee Tue Nov 09, 2010 03:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 700140)
I'm treating them the same. You touch outside of your desginated area, you've have left your designated area.

Thjat's just logical to me. Makes no sense to have conflicting rulings on what is essentially identical plays.

Back In The Saddle Tue Nov 09, 2010 03:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 700174)
Thjat's just logical to me. Makes no sense to have conflicting rulings on what is essentially identical plays.

Makes sense to me too. It's also consistent with a throw-in where if a thrower were to reach across the boundary and touch the floor with his hand, that would be a violation. Would you extend it to a jump ball as well, so that if a player on the circle reached into the circle and touched the floor before the ball it tapped, you would consider that a violation?

Adam Tue Nov 09, 2010 03:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 700159)
My theory (someone may have information to the contrary) was that this was added to stop a player leaving the back of the space trying to come around to gain inside rebounding position.

The problem with your theory is that it was always clearly illegal to leave the space. My guess, someone somewhere decided he could get a sprinter's start on a rebound.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1