lane violation

[just another ref]

By strict interpretation of the rule, calling the violation at this point is correct.
A more common practice, I believe, is to penalize for breaking the plane on the shot.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By strict interpretation of the rule, calling the violation at this point is correct.
A more common practice, I believe, is to penalize for breaking the plane on the shot.

That is kinda where my mindset is and always has been on that. When we talked in the locker room at the end of the game I tried to get his mindset on it but I think he was a stickler of by the letter on it. I wanted to ask if he would've called it if someone in the lane blocks would have touched the line while getting set with the shooter having the ball. My thinking is probably not. But I didn't ask since I was meerly observing and not actually part of the crew on this night.

[RobbyinTN]

Maybe I am a pitiful official but while I believe in enforcement of the rules, there are some things that I am a little more lenient on - this being one of them. I treat this the same as I would a three second lane violation, 10 second count on free throws, etc. I give a little - a second or two more, etc.

Maybe that is a wrong way to be but a person touching the line with the toe of their shoe while holding the ball for a free throw is not going to cause me to tweet my whistle. OTOH, if they are touching when releasing the shot, I will call it.

Robby

[Zoochy]

OK. A different spin on lane violations. A2 is occupying the 2nd space. He is sweating into the painted area. While A1 has the ball for a free throw, A2 reaches over the line with the right foot to spread out the water build up, followed by the left foot doing the same. A foot into the lane not once but twice. Violation or not?

[johnsonboys03]

could be disconcertion to the shooter so probably yes... In the OP there couldn't be any disconcertion since she was the one shooting

[Back In The Saddle]

The spirit of the rule, IMO, is to ensure that all players have the same opportunity to rebound a missed free throw by not allowing any player to enter early. In neither case (the OP or the excess sweater) did the player enter the lane early to gain an advantage. So, assuming nothing nefarious came of this little housekeeping gesture, I'd probably pass on the violation and have a quick word with the kid. If he did it again, then I'd probably call it. As for the OP, I'm not even looking at shooter's feet until either a) the shooter is set and ready to shoot, or b) it's obvious that something unusual happened and I need to look. Why go looking for what is really a meaningless violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

That is kinda where my mindset is and always has been on that. When we talked in the locker room at the end of the game I tried to get his mindset on it but I think he was a stickler of by the letter on it. I wanted to ask if he would've called it if someone in the lane blocks would have touched the line while getting set with the shooter having the ball. My thinking is probably not. But I didn't ask since I was meerly observing and not actually part of the crew on this night.

My guess, he would have called it on the lane line, too.
1. there's no reason a shooter can't get set without stepping on the line.
2. I'm not going to be the only guy making this call.
3. Had he already talked to her about it?

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My guess, he would have called it on the lane line, too.
1. there's no reason a shooter can't get set without stepping on the line.
2. I'm not going to be the only guy making this call.
3. Had he already talked to her about it?

no it was instant. Like he was looking for it but I think it was this girls first time to the line that night