Lane Violation?
B1 loses his balance while keeping both feet in his designated lane space. His hand touches the floor in the lane and he stands back up prior to the free throw shot. Violation? Citation??
|
Yes.
|
Where in the rule/case book?
|
Assuming NFHS.
Look under 9-1-3 in the Rule Book and Situation L for the respective rule in the Case Book. |
This is a recent change, IMS.
|
Oldest Trick In The Book ...
Quote:
(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just checked: In 2008-2009, it did not include the phrase "by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space." It may have been their intent, but this is a rule change; for clarification perhaps, but still a rule change. |
I had a game last season in which a HS girl was on the floor trying to grab the ball and when she touched it, her pony tail was OOB. Yep - I called it. When I explained it to her, she just laughed. OK - not a "lane violation" but similar.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What Scrapper says below.... |
Quote:
The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years. |
Quote:
9-1-3d <font color = red>Clarified</font> that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space(36 inches by 36 inches). It was a CLARIFICATION under NFHS rules, as Camron said. I lent that year's rulebook out, but I'd bet that's how it shows up at the front in the new rules changes too. Of course I don't have a clue what IAABO printed. Maybe they were making up their own rules again. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sort of like the clarification of the backcourt exception limiting it to three situations rather than any situation which does not involve active Team Control. |
Quote:
The Fed stated that it was a clarification of an existing rule, just the same as case plays are. Clarifications are NOT rules changes. |
Quote:
I'm going to go sulk now. |
Quote:
http://www.sabo.cc/downloads/2009-10...es_Changes.pdf |
Quote:
Question: Quote:
:confused: |
Quote:
|
As I remember things, the editorial change was made because players were stepping backwards out of free throw lane spaces to talk to other players, coaches, etc...so the editorial change was put in there to address that. Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?
|
Quote:
But it doesn't at all explain 9-1-3d, IMO. |
Quote:
The original rule forbade leaving the space (3'x3'). Separately, a foot breaking the plane of the space was also prohibited. There was nothing in the original rule that indicated, either explicitly or implicitly, that touching outside of the space was legal or not aside from considering it to be a way to leave the space. Since the restrictions on the feet were clearly covered in other parts of the rule, what else would "leave a marked lane space" have possibly meant that wasn't already covered by the foot restrictions? Aside from touching the floor outside of the space, can you come up with any way to leave it without breaking the plane with your feet and without touching the floor outside of the space? They merely clarified the rule make it clear that touching outside of the space was considered to be leaving the space.....even though it was all along. From 03-04... ART. 6 . . . No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space. As for the rule on keeping a foot near the lane line???? I don't know where they pulled that one from but it wasn't from anything in the rule. |
Quote:
It is what it is. If you guys want to argue, take it up with the NFHS rulesmakers. I'm just the messenger. Feel free to write them and tell them it's a rule change and not a clarification. Be sure to let us know how that turns out. But if it will make you feel any better, Randy agrees with you and Scrappy. And he says to tell you that you're both doing him proud. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But again, that same link you gave me states 9-1-3g was also a "clarification." IOW, "The FED explanation for 9-1-3g is that it's a clarification of an existing rule." Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or the NFHS isn't exactly consistent with this term. |
Quote:
Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias. |
By The Book ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool: |
Quote:
But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change. And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm referring to the change that requires at least one foot to be "near" the lane. They were "clarified" the same year, but one was clearly a change and one was clearly a clarification. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds. Quote:
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established. Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended. |
Quote:
I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation. |
Quote:
College officials: Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule. Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules): BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC. BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC. When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule? |
Quote:
Correction: NCAAM Officials, when do you begin your 10 second count? |
Quote:
The terms are there, just not in order. The sentence flows fairly easily as is, and the meaning isn't difficult to ascertain. Curious how you would word it if given the opportunity. |
Quote:
In any case, here are the answers to both your questions from the most recent (2011) NCAA casebook... A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front court near the division line.It appears that the NCAA considers a team to have team control for the purposes of fouling during thrown in but doesn't consider true "team control" to exist for anything else until the ball is caught/dribbled inbounds (player control). Two of your questions are directly answered above and one can be deduced. |
So basically the bc count begins upon pc after the throw-in has ended, even though tc existed on the throw-in (for fouling purposes).
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words. And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you've made additional statements, fine, I don't memorize them. |
Quote:
But I guess you were more intent on making it seem like I couldn't comprehend a "clearly written rule". Guess I'm not the only one who can read something and not find clarity. :rolleyes: |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02am. |