Free throw violation?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the the 36-inch by 36-inch space."

Methinks your thinking needs re-thinking.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

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]

Originally Posted by jritchie

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]

Originally Posted by jritchie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.