![]() |
lane violation
Girls Varsity game. Top two teams in the conference in a tight game with maybe 5 minutes left. R official is in the C position during a two shot freethrow situation. The shooter is standing probably three feet from the line when she request for the ball. She recieves the pass from the official pauses and then steps up to the line. Her foot touches the freethrow line and the C instantly blows the whistle and calls the violation.
My question is... Is that the way you all would call that? I've never seen it done before. I would give the girl a chance to adjust her foot instead of instanly blowing the whistle. What say you? |
I would do the same if her foot just touches the line. If it goes over any part of the line I would call it.
|
Does she still have the ball in her hand when she touches the line or is she releasing? If I am reading this correct she still has the ball so no, I would not call a lane violation.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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 |
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?
|
could be disconcertion to the shooter so probably yes... In the OP there couldn't be any disconcertion since she was the one shooting
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh my. Um, why? My first thought is you won't call it because you're afraid the coach will say something to you. But nah.....nobody officiates that way, do they? New concept? Call violations by the half? First half----> violation.....second half---->no advantage? |
Keeps The Game Interesting ...
Quote:
First Period: Violation Second Period: No advantage Third Period: Violation Fourth Period: No advantage It's actually the reverse for girls games. |
Quote:
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? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52am. |