I realize that the delayed violation thing could be a problem with this, but what about ignoring the foul (if there is one), unless the foul is intentional or flagrant? Don't we do that after other violations?

if the ball is dead you ingore fouls unless intentional/flagrant etc. most violations do make ball dead. however, violation by defense on FT does not cause ball to be dead.

Plus, it wouldn't be too hard to deem it intentional if I needed to deal with a knucklehead. :cool:

Pardon My French ...
 

Touché.

Ha ha!

I knew this would be a rule, just as it was in the 1990s.

They forgot it last year, they fixed it this year.

Ask yourself this...how many lane violations were called before the rule went back to the release? If the NFHS wants this to situation be a violation, they do they really think officials will call a violation on THIS play? I highly doubt it.

Just a question. Why do people dislike this rule?

Well, I did back then. Boxing out the shooter was an issue and they eliminated it with this rule and its enforcement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is 100% unnecessary.

I had a girls game this year where a defender boxing out the shoot knocked the shooter down. I saw it at Trail but C (multiple state finals official) did not make a call. At the next timeout C comes over talking about how he missed the play and should have called a tech (for dead ball contact). I was really surprised to hear that, given the ball was still live when the contact occurred.

I hope this new "rule" should eliminate refs thinking they should call a tech for this.

Had the ball gone through the basket?

If not, another example that everybody makes mistakes. This exact play was posted here from an NCAA-M game this season. The ball was still live during the contact and after monitor review the officials went with a DBCT.

I was in camp and saw it from the Trail and called a personal foul on the defender. Coach wasn't happy, but the observers didn't even comment on the play.

I don't believe that it is possible to observe the player in the marked lane space both entering the lane following the release and then again notice the timing that he crossed the FT line to determine if it was prior to the ball contacting the ring or backboard.

One of the reasons that the NFHS gave when reverting to entering on the release was that it would be easier for officials to look first for violations and then be able to switch to looking for fouls. Yet with this additional restriction, the officials now have to look for a second violation at the same time that they are supposed to be looking for contact fouls amongst the rebounders. It isn't going to work well.

Some officials just move up on skills other than rules knowledge. I know a few very charismatic officials that are generally good officials but weak on rules but can BS their way through just about anything they don't really know. Some of them are are so charismatic that they'll be believed so thoroughly that when it is called correctly by others it isn't believed. We probably have some of those here too.

The difference is that this violation can only occur at one location.....much easier to watch than 6 locations along the lane.

That said, I never bought that it makes a difference in watching for the violation. Either way, you have to determine if any player enters the lane before some independent event (shot released or shot hits).