I read in one of the threads where someone had posted that the SEC Supervisor of Officials had stated that the officials had made the wrong call on the lane violation. I don't know where they got their info, but here is what Gerald Boudreaux had to say.

 

 

"After the shooter caught the ball, one of the Kentucky players left his designated lane spot, which caused the violation," Boudreaux said. "The violation occurred at the time the player caught the ball. The players on the designated spots are frozen until the shot goes off. So the violation occurred, and by rule, the officials wiped out the opportunity for the shot and awarded the ball to Mississippi State. The violation occurs when the player catches the ball. It is now, by definition, at his disposal, once he catches it. There cannot be any violation until that point.

 

"When (Meeks) received the ball, (Thomas) was not in a designated spot, which causes him to be in violation once the ball reaches the shooter. He got caught, so to speak, in no man's land. He tried coming back, but coming back would not have taken him out of violating the free-throw situation. He was clearly out of the designated spot."

 

 

"The official that threw the ball to the free-throw shooter, he put his hands on (his shoulder) to get the ball back to him," Boudreaux said. "He was not aware of the violation. He wanted the ball back. What he was signaling is, 'Give me the ball back.'

 

"He wants timeout to stop play and get his crew together to find out what actually happened. Has he violated? Where do we go from there? It's no re-do. It's, by rule, a violation. That was the only option that was available to the officials on the floor."

 

 

"It is by rule a violation," Boudreaux said. "There's no leeway there. It's cut-and-dried that if he's not in the designated lane spot, it is by rule a violation, and the officials have no option as far as enforcement."

...exactly what I found, in the NCAA Rule Book...

Sheray is leaving the lane before the ref throws the ball to Jodie. It's partly the ref's fault for sure.

What a good "statement" if you can even call it that.

^ I'll give you that they are leaving at the same time..though every game of "real" basketball that I have ever played...the official addresses the players about how many shots are left, and to stay still, then passes the ball to the free thrower.

^ I'll give you that they are leaving at the same time..though every game of "real" basketball that I have ever played...the official addresses the players about how many shots are left, and to stay still, then passes the ball to the free thrower.

Yup...

First time I've ever seen the call before... Didn't even know it was a rule. Learn something new every day.

 

Glad to see that it was justified and the right call was made though, regardless the cost.

The player should signal to the ref that he wants to change lane positions also.

Gerald B. has a bit of "spin" on the situation. His first line is inaccurate. It was not "after the shooter caught the ball" that "one of the Kentucky players left his designated spot." That's simply not the case.

 

In perusing some official's discussion boards, they all agree that by definition, its not a violation UNTIL the shooter has the ball. The problem is that there is no wording that says what to do in this exact situation. Many expect that there will be an addition made to the case book on how to handle it in the future.

 

As I've said previously, if its not a violation for him to leave PRIOR to the shooter receiving the ball, they should have re-grouped, got set again, and let the shooter shoot. There's no wording in the rulebook to back up their decision.

Gerald B. has a bit of "spin" on the situation. His first line is inaccurate. It was not "after the shooter caught the ball" that "one of the Kentucky players left his designated spot." That's simply not the case.

 

In perusing some official's discussion boards, they all agree that by definition, its not a violation UNTIL the shooter has the ball. The problem is that there is no wording that says what to do in this exact situation. Many expect that there will be an addition made to the case book on how to handle it in the future.

 

:thumb:

 

Thomas was CLEARLY out of the land BEFORE the ball was even close to Meeks.

^ Even so, he must be behind the three point line and behind the parralell line of the free throw line, which he clearly wasn't.

Didn't get to watch the game but it was explained to me that Meeks was shooting free throws with a 3 point lead and 5 seconds left; and Thomas committed a lane violation at that point. So, if this is correct I think people need to quit complaining about the call by the official and complain about the call by Tubby. Why in the world would you have guys on the line in the first place?

^ Even so, he must be behind the three point line and behind the parralell line of the free throw line, which he clearly wasn't.

 

That is why the call is incorrect. Thomas cannot be standing where he was at the time Meeks received the ball and was there because the official did not make sure everyone was set, so the ref has to allow him to reset.

Gerald B. has a bit of "spin" on the situation. His first line is inaccurate. It was not "after the shooter caught the ball" that "one of the Kentucky players left his designated spot." That's simply not the case.

 

In perusing some official's discussion boards, they all agree that by definition, its not a violation UNTIL the shooter has the ball. The problem is that there is no wording that says what to do in this exact situation. Many expect that there will be an addition made to the case book on how to handle it in the future.

 

As I've said previously, if its not a violation for him to leave PRIOR to the shooter receiving the ball, they should have re-grouped, got set again, and let the shooter shoot. There's no wording in the rulebook to back up their decision.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

They need to go back to oldschool officiating where they use to hand the ball to player.