lane violation

[johnsonboys03]

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?

[cmhjordan23]

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.

[RobbyinTN]

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.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by RobbyinTN

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.

Yes the ball is in her hands. There was no attempt to shoot the freethrow. She meerly stepped up to the line. Still looking at the ground to set her feet actually.

[RobbyinTN]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Yes the ball is in her hands. There was no attempt to shoot the freethrow. She meerly stepped up to the line. Still looking at the ground to set her feet actually.

I wouldn't call a violation then

[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?

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by cmhjordan23

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.

Remember this is the second half...whos bench is she in front of...her own...I am not calling this...she can correct herself...no advantage gained.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Remember this is the second half...whos bench is she in front of...her own...I am not calling this...she can correct herself...no advantage gained.

But in the first half, you'd call it?

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

New concept? Call violations by the half? First half----> violation.....second half---->no advantage?

Around her we go by periods:
First Period: Violation
Second Period: No advantage
Third Period: Violation
Fourth Period: No advantage
It's actually the reverse for girls games.

[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?