3 second violation
 

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?

Who You Gonna Call (Rest In Peace Harold Ramis) ...
 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6230/6...473e048e_m.jpg

The intent of the three-second rule is to not allow an offensive player in the lane to gain an advantage. There is no three-second count between the release of a shot and the control of a rebound, at which time a new count starts. There is no three-second count during a throwin. There is no three-second count while the ball is in the backcourt. There is a three-second count during an interrupted dribble. There is a three-second count while an offensive player has one foot in the lane and one foot outside of the lane, and the three-second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane. It’s a violation for a player to step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation. Allowance shall be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for goal.

9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Where did he get that from?
 

“A player shall not remain for three seconds in that part of his/her free-throw lane between the end line and the farther edge of the free-throw line while the ball is in control of his/her team in his/her frontcourt.” (Rule 9-7-1)

If he went out of bounds to avoid a three-second call, why not call the correct violation of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason?

Nothing in the previous posts suggests he didn't.

I was referring to the OP saying that the official said that the lane extends beyond the end line.

Gotcha.

Where does this stuff come from???? :eek:

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.

I knew I had heard that somewhere!

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?

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.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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)

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.