How do you emphasize a rule that doesn't exist?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I don't think its as complicated as some are making it. The rules say players may enter the "lane" on release. The semi-circle is NOT part of the lane. The POE is clarifying that when NFHS changed the rule they did not intend for players other than the shooter be in this space.

Actually, the rule doesn't even say they can't enter the lane until the release. It only says they can't leave their lane space until the release. There is no reference to which direction they leave it or where they go to. The rule has no restrictions on location once the ball is released (for players in a marked lane space).

9-1-3d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space until the ball is released.

All that said, I just noticed something interesting in the rule that does give support to the POE. Look at these other parts of the rule...

9-1-3c. No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

ART. 4 . . . The restrictions in 9-1-3b and c apply until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

I have never considered it to be possible to disconcert after the ball has been released but the rules do allow for it. So, you could consider crossing the FT line to be disconcertion and have it supported by the rules. If so, it really isn't about what areas are restricted or not but really simply about interfering with the shooter during his protected time frame....disconcertion. Of course, if that is the case, a player doesn't even have to cross into the FT semi-circle to do that.