PDA

View Full Version : Lane Violations in the Tournament



uh_no
03-17-2012, 01:58 PM
So far two teams have lost or seriously hurt their chances of winning their games due to lane violations.

In both situations, it was a player crossing the three point line early. Now, I didn't know until yesterday when I read the rulebook that the 3pt line cannot be crossed until the ball hits the rim (as opposed to everyone other than the shooter, who may enter the lane on the shot), and clearly the players and the announcers don't know it either.

So first, I'm sure each coach in the country is reminding their teams that they can't cross the 3pt line until the rim.

Anyway, What I find more interesting is the seemingly unfair penalties when teams commit lane violations.

If the defense commits the violation, and the shot is missed, the shotter gets another try. If the offensive player commits a lane violation, the free is missed, regardless of whether it went in or not.

So in the case of the defense committing the violation, they only get penalized if the play could have affected the outcome (ie. the FT missing could be blamed on being distracted), but when the offense commits the violation, they are penalized regardless (either the shot doesn't count, or the defense is awarded the ball). WHy the discrepancy? It doesn't make sense to me that the defense is allowed to get away with a violation that doesn't matter, when the offense cannot (ie there is a lane violation, but the shot went in, so the lane violation is meaningless).

This was the exact situation in the game last night, the ND guy made his free throw, but the player crossed the 3pt line early....its obvious it was irrelevent...but whats the point of calling it unless the is missed? It is impossible for them to gain an advantage unless the shot has been missed....and its not like they are going to be trying to distract their own shooter...

I'm just curious if anyone else has an opinion on this....I mean obviously the players need to know the rules...and this is an obscure one that most people don't know (but probably will be more aware of now)...but it seems a bit silly.

Edouble
03-17-2012, 02:24 PM
This was the exact situation in the game last night, the ND guy made his free throw, but the player crossed the 3pt line early....its obvious it was irrelevent...but whats the point of calling it unless the is missed? It is impossible for them to gain an advantage unless the shot has been missed....and its not like they are going to be trying to distract their own shooter...

Agree. Especially since the ball went it, I thought the referee should have just given the player who ran in a verbal warning, as referees do quite often to clean up problems that they see before anything gets out of hand.

As Charles Barkley alluded to after the ND game, players shouldn't play their butts off for 40 minutes and have the game decided like that.

In the Syracuse game, the first time it happened, none of the announcers understood what the call even was. I suspect not many at home did either.

It's fun to know a new rule, but seems strange to make it a point of emphasis starting in the post season.

Jarhead
03-17-2012, 02:53 PM
One facet of the new rule covers offensive players inside the three point line. On a three point shot those players are prohibited from leaving that area until the ball hits the rim. I don't see how that can be enforced, though, since everyone is watching the flight of the ball.
http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/22.gif

sagegrouse
03-17-2012, 02:57 PM
Swallow the whistle, goofball. Or, go home and kick your dog, but don't settle the outcome of an NCAA tournament game on an utter technicality. ND made the shot -- it didn't matter what anyone did.

sagegrouse

uh_no
03-17-2012, 03:06 PM
Swallow the whistle, goofball. Or, go home and kick your dog, but don't settle the outcome of an NCAA tournament game on an utter technicality. ND made the shot -- it didn't matter what anyone did.

sagegrouse

The only thing I can think was that it was a point of emphasis for tourney refs.

Anyway, I think the players need to know the rules, and the rule needs to change.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-17-2012, 03:14 PM
Swallow the whistle, goofball. Or, go home and kick your dog, but don't settle the outcome of an NCAA tournament game on an utter technicality. ND made the shot -- it didn't matter what anyone did.

sagegrouse

I have to disagree. Call the foul when you see a foul. No exceptions.

Return the game to the rules, not vague interpretations by officials as they see fit.
Players and coaches have to know and play by the rules. Being smart and under control mentally as well as physically is part of the game.

Indoor66
03-17-2012, 03:34 PM
I have to disagree. Call the foul when you see a foul. No exceptions.

Return the game to the rules, not vague interpretations by officials as they see fit.
Players and coaches have to know and play by the rules. Being smart and under control mentally as well as physically is part of the game.

You are dead on with this one. A violation is a violation in the first 30 seconds or the last 30 seconds of a game. That's just the way it is and how it should be enforced. Otherwise the refs decide the game, not the players.

-jk
03-17-2012, 03:42 PM
One facet of the new rule covers offensive players inside the three point line. On a three point shot those players are prohibited from leaving that area until the ball hits the rim. I don't see how that can be enforced, though, since everyone is watching the flight of the ball.
http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/22.gif

I'm confused by this statement. Can you cite the rule?

-jk

sagegrouse
03-17-2012, 03:42 PM
I have to disagree. Call the foul when you see a foul. No exceptions.

Return the game to the rules, not vague interpretations by officials as they see fit.
Players and coaches have to know and play by the rules. Being smart and under control mentally as well as physically is part of the game.


You are dead on with this one. A violation is a violation in the first 30 seconds or the last 30 seconds of a game. That's just the way it is and how it should be enforced. Otherwise the refs decide the game, not the players.

Where's the Playcaller when we need him? There is interpretation in every foul called (or not called), because any contact can cause some degree of disadvantage for either team, and the cause of the contact is probably shared to some degree by both players. I thought some of the fouls called against Duke were ticky tacks and should have been ignored, which would have greatly improved our prospects for a win. But the three FTs Austin got at the end were a bit ludicrous, don't you think, given the small amount of contact and the big ol' flop that ensued?

sagegrouse

uh_no
03-17-2012, 03:58 PM
I'm confused by this statement. Can you cite the rule?

-jk

I think he meant to say during a free throw shot, not during a foul shot. I'm not sure players along the key LEAVING the three point area is a violation....but i'd have to look...either way...getting from the side of the lane to outside the arc between when the ball is shot and when it hits the rim is a pretty impressive feat

WakeDevil
03-17-2012, 04:16 PM
Why would you call a defensive violation on a FT if the shot is good? Once an offensive player violates, the play is over. In the case of a defensive violation followed by an offensive violation, what happens next depends on the offensive player.

I had a play where the defense violated the 3-point line, followed by double violations on the land, followed by a violation by the shooter.

uh_no
03-17-2012, 04:20 PM
Why would you call a defensive violation on a FT if the shot is good? Once an offensive player violates, the play is over. In the case of a defensive violation followed by an offensive violation, what happens next depends on the offensive player.

I had a play where the defense violated the 3-point line, followed by double violations on the land, followed by a violation by the shooter.

yeah the rule book is really complicated for the order in which these things get resolved...its like offsides/false start/encroachment in defense...but at least in that case it seems fair...5 yds either way

WakeDevil
03-17-2012, 04:26 PM
I'll give you how I resolved it. First, the defense violates. I ignored the second defensive violation because it wasn't a distraction. The offensive lane violation is ignored, but the shooter's violation results in an alternating possession. High school rules.

Jarhead
03-17-2012, 05:53 PM
I'm confused by this statement. Can you cite the rule?

-jk

Just a little sarcasm in a gloomy moment. The lack of good coverage in our transition defense made it seem that there was such a rule. Sometimes a little mild sarcasm eases the pain. The smilie at the end was evidence that I was trying to keep a straight face. That game on Friday, and the one in 1990 against UNLV are the two most disappointing games in my long career as a Duke fan. One consoling fact is that we always bounce back.

jafarr1
03-17-2012, 11:40 PM
The only thing I can think was that it was a point of emphasis for tourney refs.

I suspect it became a much bigger point of emphasis after they called it the first time.

FWIW, I started watching for the call after the Syrcause-UNCA game, and I saw the call not made twice in another game in the tournament. Seems like a silly rule, one that I never saw called until the postseason.

uh_no
03-18-2012, 01:05 PM
another one jut called on georgetown...this one was actually on the lane a pretty blantant....front end of a one and one the guy ended up making....cost his team maybe two points

Jarhead
03-18-2012, 09:48 PM
Just stumbled on this replay (http://floppingout.com/) of the incident yesterday involving Notre Dame and Zavier. This covers the issue completely, and makes a very fuzzy story very clear to me. What isn't clear is the intent of the rule. The video shows clearly what happened, and includes the play by play guys' discussion. Even they got it wrong. The link is to the Flopping Out site which I believe is a blog. It quotes the the mind boggling rule:

Rule 9, Section 1, Article 2, Part G

Players not in a legal marked lane space shall remain behind the freethrow
line extended and behind the three-point field-goal line until
the ball strikes the ring, flange or backboard, or until the free throw
ends.
I think I always knew that players not lined up at the sides of the lane were required to remain behind the free throw line extended. I just don't understand how the three point line got involved with free throws, and in such an extreme way. The players lined up in legal position at the sides of the lane may enter the lane as soon as the shooter releases the ball. Why the extreme difference, pray tell?

bjornolf
03-18-2012, 09:59 PM
Just stumbled on this replay (http://floppingout.com/) of the incident yesterday involving Notre Dame and Zavier. This covers the issue completely, and makes a very fuzzy story very clear to me. What isn't clear is the intent of the rule. The video shows clearly what happened, and includes the play by play guys' discussion. Even they got it wrong. The link is to the Flopping Out site which I believe is a blog. It quotes the the mind boggling rule:

I think I always knew that players not lined up at the sides of the lane were required to remain behind the free throw line extended. I just don't understand how the three point line got involved with free throws, and in such an extreme way. The players lined up in legal position at the sides of the lane may enter the lane as soon as the shooter releases the ball. Why the extreme difference, pray tell?

Probably because they could take a running start, cross the line, and come crashing into the lane right as the ball got there, with the bigs occupied with each other. Kind of like low blocking a defender in football while he is engaged. Just a chance for ugliness, I guess. Shooter can't move either for the same reason. He could throw it WAY up and take a running start and dunk it right after it hits the rim with no defender having a shot at it.

uh_no
03-18-2012, 10:01 PM
Just stumbled on this replay (http://floppingout.com/) of the incident yesterday involving Notre Dame and Zavier. This covers the issue completely, and makes a very fuzzy story very clear to me. What isn't clear is the intent of the rule. The video shows clearly what happened, and includes the play by play guys' discussion. Even they got it wrong. The link is to the Flopping Out site which I believe is a blog. It quotes the the mind boggling rule:

I think I always knew that players not lined up at the sides of the lane were required to remain behind the free throw line extended. I just don't understand how the three point line got involved with free throws, and in such an extreme way. The players lined up in legal position at the sides of the lane may enter the lane as soon as the shooter releases the ball. Why the extreme difference, pray tell?

it would negate the defensive team's advantage of 4 to 3 guys on the lane.

bjornolf
03-18-2012, 10:07 PM
Probably because they could take a running start, cross the line, and come crashing into the lane right as the ball got there, with the bigs occupied with each other. Kind of like low blocking a defender in football while he is engaged. Just a chance for ugliness, I guess. Shooter can't move either for the same reason. He could throw it WAY up and take a running start and dunk it right after it hits the rim with no defender having a shot at it.

That might be a good strategy at the end of a game where you needed two if you had a fast guy who could jump out of the gym.

Jarhead
03-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Probably because they could take a running start, cross the line, and come crashing into the lane right as the ball got there, with the bigs occupied with each other. Kind of like low blocking a defender in football while he is engaged. Just a chance for ugliness, I guess. Shooter can't move either for the same reason. He could throw it WAY up and take a running start and dunk it right after it hits the rim with no defender having a shot at it.


it would negate the defensive team's advantage of 4 to 3 guys on the lane.


That might be a good strategy at the end of a game where you needed two if you had a fast guy who could jump out of the gym.

Yeah, and if a frog had wings... What does all of this have to do with the three point line? The free throw line extended takes care of things. The only reason for the shooter being restrained from crossing that line is the possibility for a rebound advantage, but that is about as likely as the second in line getting the last ticket. Drop the rule regarding either line, and the over-involved refs get to look for a real violation.

uh_no
03-19-2012, 12:35 PM
Yeah, and if a frog had wings... What does all of this have to do with the three point line? The free throw line extended takes care of things. The only reason for the shooter being restrained from crossing that line is the possibility for a rebound advantage, but that is about as likely as the second in line getting the last ticket. Drop the rule regarding either line, and the over-involved refs get to look for a real violation.

if the three point line wasn't a rule, then players could effectively line up on the free throw line right next to the shooter.....if you dropped the rule entirely, then the other players could just line up with everyone next to the lane....a recipe for disaster....