3 second violation

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KLP

During a basketball game, a player stepped out of bounds under his own basket to avoid a 3 second violation. The referee called the violation and informed the player that the 3 second lane extends beyond the end line and to the wall. Is this correct?

Where does this stuff come from????

If I was a spectator I'd have been very tempted to chat with that official after the game to get a dumb idea like that out of their head. Call it stopping a virus before it continues to spread.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Where does this stuff come from????

If I was a spectator I'd have been very tempted to chat with that official after the game to get a dumb idea like that out of their head. Call it stopping a virus before it continues to spread.

The NBA...where for the purposes of a 3 second violation, the lane extends four feet off the end of the court from the baseline.

Originally Posted by APG

The NBA...where for the purposes of a 3 second violation, the lane extends four feet off the end of the court from the baseline.

I knew I had heard that somewhere!

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

The NBA...where for the purposes of a 3 second violation, the lane extends four feet off the end of the court from the baseline.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the NBA interp (obviously). I feel a little better that it actually exists. I guess I would modify any potential intervention to say "unless you're in the NBA, that's not why it's a violation."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the NBA interp (obviously). I feel a little better that it actually exists. I guess I would modify any potential intervention to say "unless you're in the NBA, that's not why it's a violation."

He may be wrong, semantically, but for all intents and purposes, it really doesn't matter. For the sake of discussion, what difference would it make? IOW, what play or action would it change?

[bob jenkins]

Case 9.3.3A is the same play as the OP

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Where does this stuff come from????

If I was a spectator I'd have been very tempted to chat with that official after the game to get a dumb idea like that out of their head. Call it stopping a virus before it continues to spread.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Case 9.3.3A is the same play as the OP

I believe that, at one time, before the leaving of the court for an unauthorized reason was added, the above was the correct ruling. Once the leaving of the court ruling was added, it was no longer necessary to have the 3-second interpretation that extended OOB below the lane.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Case 9.3.3A is the same play as the OP

9.3.3 SITUATION A: A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane.
A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second
count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A's basket. RULING:
A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
(9-7)

[j51969]

Not for nothing, but around early 2000's this used to be a T. No one would call it becuase the punishment didn't fit the crime. So it was changed to a Violation like it should have been all along.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by j51969

No one would call it becuase the punishment didn't fit the crime.

True.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by j51969

Not for nothing, but around early 2000's this used to be a T. No one would call it becuase the punishment didn't fit the crime. So it was changed to a Violation like it should have been all along.

The case (under a slightly different number) was added in the 2005-2006 season. I didn't check the interps to see if was listed there first.