Free throw violation?
 

2 seconds to go in a 1 point game...losing team is shooting a 1-1. The shooter is dribbling and loses his balance and falls forward and his hand lands in the lane. What do you call?

off the top of my head, I would say lane violation since the ball was at the shooter's disposal (based on your statement that the shooter was dribbling). Just like if anyone else on the lanes were to step inside the lane while the shooter had the ball, there would be a lane violation (delayed if opposing team's violation).

Don't have my rulebook at the moment so don't take this 100%. That's just what my interpretation of the rules is.

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

Actually, the restrictions are different for the shooter and the players on marked lane spaces. Both are restricted from either foot breaking their respective vertical planes. Players on the lane are further restricted from contacting the court outside the 36 by 36 inch space. There is no similar restriction on the shooter.

Ok, thanks for the clarification on the difference between shooters and lane-occupiers.

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

Casebook, 9.1.3 Sit K
 

... 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"?

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.

Rule citation, please.

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.

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

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 <font color = red>leaving the MARKED LANE SPACE</font>." 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.....:D

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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.

That's logical imo also.

No, it was a clarification that was intended to clarify the point that if you touch the floor in the lane, you've left your spot and are in the lane. It wasn't added as a new "rule" for those on the lane. There is no reason to only apply it to just one group when the unclarified rules were essentially identical.

My initial analysis was based on a flawed memory of the wording. I thought the wording was more along the lines of, "may not leave the lane space or touch the floor outside of the lane space." Instead, the new wording equates touching the floor outside the space with leaving the space. Seems a good enough precedent to me.

But there is more to the story. The shooter is obviously the most important player involved in the free throw. Therefore, he is subject to at least one different consideration. (10-3-5c) Why it is a given that all other considerations should necessarily be the same?

Both are required to remain in their space until the FT hits something. In one case, they define that touching the floor outside of your space is the same as leaving that space. Why would that concept not apply to the shooter?

The same concept applies just about EVERYWHERE else on the court....OOB vs. Inbounds, FC vs BC, 2-point vs 3-point. Why would it not apply in this one narrow case?


Here are the ones I can think of...some are explicit, other are implicit.

• If you're supposed to be OOB (throwin) and touch inbounds, you're inbounds.
• If you're supposed to be inbounds and touch OOB, you're OOB.
• If touch the BC, you're in the BC.
• If touch inside the 3-point arc, you're inside the 3-point arc.
• If touch inside the lane (for 3 seconds), you're inside the lane.
• If you're supposed to be in a marked lane space and touch outside of the marked lane space, you are outside of the lane space.
• If you are supposed to be in the center circle (jump ball) and touch outside of the circle, you are outside of the circle.

These are all consistent...what basis suggest it would be any different for the FT shooter?

• If you are supposed to be in the FT semi-circle (for FTs) and touch outside of the semi-circle, you are outside of the circle.

These all sum up to the following: touching a location outside of where a player is required to be makes that the player's location.

I don't know why, but since the rule book specifies one but not the other, that is the end of the story for me. If it was a case play which specifies one, I agree we would apply it to the other.


He can bounce the ball outside the semi-circle without penalty.

So...........

And an inbounder may bounce the ball outside his spot, just not inbounds, before releasing the throwin pass.

We are both reaching now.

The CLARIFICATION simply illuminated a way a person can leave an area the were restricted to...they leave it by touching elsewhere. The only remotely likely scenario for a player touching the floor with a hand is really with players on the lane. It was never meant to establish a rule for just the players along the lane...just to clarify that if they touch with a hand, they're in. It wasn't really necessary for the shooter since shooters never fall in anticipating the rebound....but they'd still be in if they did.

The rules are intended to be consistent. When it only seems they're not consistent, short of explicit wording to the contrary, you're probably wrong.

This is one of those places where you just have apply common sense and know the spirit and intent of the rule to realize the concept mentioned in one item is a general concept that is not limited to one narrow situation.

I see the intent of this particular rule is to keep players from leaning into the lane to more quickly get into position to rebound. The shooter would gain no such advantage by pushing his balance to the limit. On the contrary, the quality of the shot would suffer. Therefore, such a limit on the shooter is not necessary, and, as far as I can see, not present.

Yet, the rules penalize the shooter for stepping into the lane then back before shooting.....no advantage there either.

The shooter simply can't leave the semi-circle. The only question is what constitutes leaving the semi-circle. The NFHS has established that touching the floor outside of marked lane space is equivalent to leaving that space. There is no reason the same concept doesn't apply universally.

With the enter-on-contact requirement for FTs, the rebounders can easily time their entry and don't need to lean in...and if they do such that they touch the floor before the ball hits, they'll still be on the floor when someone else gets the rebound. What advantage is that? If they touch the floor way before the ball gets there such that they have time to get back up and be ready for the rebound, they couldn't possibly have been anticipating the ball hitting the rim/board. And what advantage is that?

One very good reason. It's not in the book.


But they do it anyway.


Nobody wants to touch the floor. Obviously no advantage there. But if they do so, they are not allowed to reset without penalty, as specified in the rule, for the players in the lane spaces only.

If this is the intent, and perhaps it is, another clarification is in order.

"Once the ball is at the disposal of the shooter, neither the shooter nor any player in a designated lane space is allowed to leave his spot by contacting the court outside his own area."