Free throw violation?

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Um no, that logic is completely wrong. Snaqs' statement was.."I would say that touching the floor in the lane does not constitute leaving the MARKED LANE SPACE." NFHS rule 9-1-3d contradicts that statement. That was my point. There is no mention of the FT shooter in his statement, only references to marked lane spaces.

If he hadda said that touching the floor in the lane does not constitute "have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket.." by the FT shooter, as laid out in a completely different rule (9-1-3e), then we would have a completely different discussion.

Now you tell me, Skippy.....

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?

[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 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.