Free throw violation?

[JonnyP10]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Please note that the score, the amount of time left in the game and which team is shooting are all irrelevant factors.

Noted. I was just giving the scenario knowing that the rule is a rule. Thank you

[ref3808]

... After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the of the freethrower, he/she is not permitted to leave or enter the free-throw semicircle without violating, until restrictions have ended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ref3808

... After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the of the freethrower, he/she is not permitted to leave or enter the free-throw semicircle without violating, until restrictions have ended.

And..?

Does touching the floor with a hand constitute "leave(ing) or enter(ing) the free-throw semicircle"?

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And..?

Does touching the floor with a hand constitute "leave(ing) or enter(ing) the free-throw semicircle"?

Yes it does. Violation on the shooter, and if this is the front end of a 1-and-1, then it counts as a miss. Defense gets to take the ball out for a spot throwin on the endline. If it was the first shot of a two or three shot free throw, then it still counts as a miss, but the shooter is allowed to attempt the remaining free throws.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Yes it does. Violation on the shooter....

Rule citation, please.

[Adam]

Based on the fact that they had to add the part about touching the floor in the lane to the restrictions on the non-shooters along the lane, I would say that touching the floor in the lane does not constitute leaving the marked lane space.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Based on the fact that they had to add the part about touching the floor in the lane to the restrictions on the non-shooters along the lane, I would say that touching the floor in the lane does not constitute leaving the marked lane space.

Why would you say that? IIRC, it was changed as a an editorial change...meaning it was a clarification on the existing rule rather than a change in a rule. Therefore, touching in the lane was always considered to be the same as leaving the space, but since it wasn't explicitly spelled out and some didn't read it that way, so they changed it. Touching the lane makes a player's location in the lane. If their location is in the lane, they've left the marked spot.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Based on the fact that they had to add the part about touching the floor in the lane to the restrictions on the non-shooters along the lane, I would say that touching the floor in the lane does not constitute leaving the marked lane space.

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.

[Scrapper1]

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.

Snaq's point, right or wrong, is that the free throw shooter is not entering or leaving a marked lane space and is never required to be in the 36"x36" space, so this rule does not apply to him/her.

[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.