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

[Scrapper1]

From this year's POE #3: "On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard."

I love this rule. It used to be the rule 30 years ago. Can anybody cite this rule for me?

[JRutledge]

There is no rule, but you cannot displace the shooter.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

From this year's POE #3: "On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard."

I love this rule. It used to be the rule 30 years ago. Can anybody cite this rule for me?

It wasn't the rule 30 years ago. It was a rule for 4 years, from 1993-94 until the lane restrictions were changed in 1997-98 and it became unnecessary.

(The NFHS handbook is a treasure trove of historical rule information. Love the digital access I got with my NFHS membership. BTW, the alternating possession arrow is 30 years old this year -- it was adopted in 1985-86, two years before I started officiating HS basketball.)

I'm not bothered at all about it. I'll simply call a violation and point at the POE if asked.

I stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rich

i stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!

+1.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rich

It wasn't the rule 30 years ago. It was a rule for 4 years, from 1993-94 until the lane restrictions were changed in 1997-98 and it became unnecessary.

Ok, I honestly have no idea what the rules were 30 years ago. But I knew that it had been a rule at one point long ago.

I stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!

"Pedantic" seems to be somewhat a matter of opinion, since one person's trivial detail is another's crucial distinction ("marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"), but I take your point.

I happen to think that it's important for the rules, case plays and POEs to be internally consistent. It bothers me when one section of the book says x and another section says not-x. It also bothers me when it appears that the people who are entrusted with the rules of the game seem to have a cavalier attitude about the changes that they make.

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

OK, but what are you looking to confirm? The rule is written the way it is. There is no rule for crossing the FT line like their used to be. I do not believe any other level had that rule in place but the NF. But you still can protect the shooter from being displaced, but the issue is no longer crossing a line.

I do not see this as a big deal. The rule is different now, that is all.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, but what are you looking to confirm? The rule is written the way it is. There is no rule for crossing the FT line like their used to be. I do not believe any other level had that rule in place but the NF. But you still can protect the shooter from being displaced, but the issue is no longer crossing a line.

I do not see this as a big deal. The rule is different now, that is all.

Peace

Well, that's the point he's making. Maybe I'm being too blasé about it after all.

The NFHS is saying that it's a rule (based on the POE), but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rich

The NFHS is saying that it's a rule (based on the POE), but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

Exactly, I think they're saying in the POE to call a violation; but it's not listed as a violation in the rulebook or casebook.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

. . . but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

As I await delivery of the new rulebook and casebook, I had imagined they'd add this as a violation somewhere.
Did you get a look at the new rulebook?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

I feel the same way. It looks like the infamous "IAABO (Peter Webb) Interpretation" (from last season) of this situation made it into the NFHS Points Of Emphasis, but didn't make it into the actual rulebook:

NFHS 2015-16 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. FREE THROW SHOOTER

Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

Maybe there will be a case play that will explain this further?

(Note: IAABO is red boldfaced below to emphasize that these are IAABO interpretations from last season, not NFHS interpretations.)

From January/February 2015 IAABO Sportorial Magazine:

Violation if a player legally enters the free throw lane and then breaks the outside edge of the free throw line, with a foot/feet, prior to the ball contacting the backboard or basket ring. Display the delay lane violation signal, pending successful or unsuccessful free throw.

From IAABO Board 403, Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association, Play of the Week, from last season:

Play #2 - A-1 is attempting a free throw. After A-1 releases the ball, B-4, from a marked lane space, boxes out A-1 by stepping across the free throw line before the ball contacts the ring and making incidental contact with the shooter. The free throw is unsuccessful. The Center official rules a violation on B-4 and awards A-1 a substitute free throw. Was the official correct?
Answer: The official was correct. The rule change this season allows players in marked lane spaces to enter the lane upon the release of the free throw. However, no player may penetrate the free throw line in either direction until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. (References: Rule 9.1.3g, NFHS Interpretation)

Or, maybe we'll be debating this situation for another entire season.

To paraphrase the late Jurassic Referee: Stupid IAABO. Stupid NFHS. Stupid monkeys.

[Rich]

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rich

while you're wringing your hands over this, i'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

+1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

But will you (by POE) call it a violation, or (by rule) call nothing unless a foul is committed?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rich

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

Maybe it has something to with a "stick up my butt" mentality, but that reply is simply too cavalier for me. Of course, we're all going to go work games. Nobody's turning back his schedule because (once again) we're instructed to call something that contradicts our rulebook.

But that doesn't do anything to decide exactly how to call this play. By rule, there's no violation for crossing the FT line before the try hits the ring or backboard. So why in the world would I call it?

And this is not a criticism of you personally, Rich. I think you know that I have tremendous respect for you, both on and off of this forum. I just can't bring myself to not care about this. It seems like a big deal to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!

Is this just in basketball?

Just kidding.

Peace