I Can See Clearly Now (Johnny Nash, 1972) ...
 

9-1-3-G: A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by lane-space marks. A player must position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space until the ball has been released.

Interesting point. So you're saying that the "36 inches" (red above) in the rule defines the depth of the marked lane space. My first quick read thought that "36 inches" referred to the width of the space, but I now see another aspect to "36 inches".

Thirty Six Inches ...
 

I read it again, and also went back to the 2009-10 Rulebook when "one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line" was clarified (Rulebook was not helpful, and I don't have my written notes from that far back, but I do remember this being discussed).

I'm not fully convinced that "36 inches" limits a player from going back, but rather limits the player from moving sideways into an opponent's "protected" area (similar to a jump ball) that extends 36 inches behind said opponent's lane line (longer than the 8 inches painted on court).

1-5-2: The lane-space marks (2 inches by 8 inches) identify areas which extend 36 inches from the outer edge of the lane lines toward the sidelines.

Based on what I remember from my state interpreter's discussion of the 2009-10 clarification, I believe that a player must position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space until the ball has been released limits how far back a player can go, with within the designated 36-inch lane space referring to the width of the lane space, not it's limiting depth for a player only moving backward (not sideways).

Thus, a 7 foot 4 inch player (example given eleven years ago) could legally have one foot "near" the lane line the other foot more than 36 inches back. It was the 2009-10 clarification (one foot near the lane line) that kept him from going all the way back to the sideline within his three foot wide lane space, before this there was no depth limit, just a depth "protective" area (similar to a jump ball) for an opponent. If there was a 36 inch depth limit, why have the "one foot near the lane line" verbiage, just keep him inside his four sided infinitely tall box (imagine a mime)?

But I wouldn't bet my house on my interpretation based on what I can remember from eleven years ago (one foot near lane line limits depth), and I can be easily convinced otherwise.

Now, where are my car keys?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.q...=0&w=307&h=174

[QUOTE=BillyMac;1041375]
1-5-2: The lane-space marks (2 inches by 8 inches) identify areas which extend 36 inches from the outer edge of the lane lines toward the sidelines.

I'm not getting your argument on this. The lane space is 36 inches from the outer edge of the line toward the sideline. That defines a box. Is your entire argument that it's not a 36 inch deep spot the interpretation or is there more I'm missing?

The Box ...
 

Correct, it absolutely does define the box, but it doesn't define the limits of entering and leaving said box.

In another situation, the box (with curved sides) around a player on the the jump ball circle doesn't allow an opponent to enter the opponent's "protective" box within a certain time frame, however, it does allow the player in that box to leave the box, as far back as they want to go, at any time.

Is the lane space box movement limitation similar?

Is this box kind of the opposite of the Hotel California (with apologies to the 1977 Eagles)? You can't check-in any time you like. But you can always leave.

I'm leaning yes, but I can easily be convinced otherwise.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.H...=0&w=300&h=300

Agree...using the lane space markings as a reference, I think she steps well beyond 36" away from the lane line.

One Foot Near The Lane Line ...
 

I'm not 100% fully convinced that this is the actual limiting rule. I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm leaning toward the depth being limited by the player's stride, not the thirty six inches, based on what I can remember from discussion regarding the 2009-10 rule clarification.

While the lane space is absolutely thirty six inches wide and thirty six inches deep (as are the depths of jump ball circle spaces), if there was a thirty six inch depth limit for leaving (backing up) the space, why have the "one foot near the lane line" verbiage, just keep the player inside the four sided thirty six inch wide and thirty six inch deep infinitely tall box until the release.

In my opinion, the other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space refers to the width of the space, not the depth.

Anybody got any written notes regarding the 2009-10 rule clarification? I discarded mine, but I remember what was discussed, including the example of the seven footer with a stride longer than thirty six inches, an example very clear in my mind even eleven years later.

I can probably be easily convincing that I'm wrong in my interpretation. Like I said, I'm not going to die on this hill, and I would truly like to know the correct interpretation.

36-Inch By 36-Inch Space ...
 

I'm now 100% fully convinced that I was 100% fully incorrect.

9-1-3-D: No player must 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.

Now can somebody please remind me why this was added to the rulebook eleven years ago: A player must position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line.

And how was "near" defined?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=300&h=300

I Always Carry A Tape Measure When I Officiate ...
 

After using a divider caliper, my Pickett Slide Rule, and the Pythagorean Theorem, I fully agree (37 3/8 inches).

She got that far back before the release (barely). White #30 violation.

https://www.sliderulemuseum.com/Ephe...Bankruptcy.jpg

I remember we had discussions wondering the same and no one ever came up with a definitive answer.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It wasn't. Here, we use the "depth" of the lane space mark, for any part of the foot. It's never been an issue.

I have no idea why. It seems entirely unnecessary. The only thing it does is prevent a player from started away from the line and more easily ducking behind the the player closer to the basket. It probably cleans up the rebounding a bit and tilts the advantage just a little more towards the defensive team. Perhaps that latter point (the balance of advantage) is the only reason to change it.


Agree...never defined. You could say that the entire 3' depth is near the lane line.....it certainly is relative to the sideline. ;)

Near Defined ...
 

So, eight inches.

Updated And Corrected IAABO International Play Commentary
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...yEpSlLdEgq.mp4

Editor's Note: IAABO takes a great deal of pride in the quality of the information we provide on these plays. An incredible amount of time and effort is put in by IAABO office staff and Co-coordinators in developing, editing, and writing narratives to support these plays. If there are significant rules-based errors, please contact us, and we will make the correction. When you contact us, be respectful! Many of these plays are incredibly challenging to determine the correct ruling. We do the best we can to support the selected ruling with thorough rules-based explanations and attempt to cover all aspects of the play. None of the plays we have presented thus far has generated 100% agreement as to the correct ruling. These plays are designed to stimulate valuable discussion with members. There will be some subjectivity to many of these plays. Do not let your disagreement with the selected ruling prevent you from benefiting from the written narratives that accompany each play.

Here is a correction to this previously posted play:

Updated And Corrected IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a free throw violation.

In this play, White #30, in a marked lane space, attempts to maneuver behind her opponent to obtain a rebounding position in the lane. Her initial position along the lane is legal. She has at least one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. This player moves laterally toward her opponent's marked lane space.

A player occupying a (36-inch by 36-inch) marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space designated by lane-space marks. (9-1-3g) This restriction ends upon the release of the try.

This ruling will be based on whether or not she left her marked lane space and moved into an opponent's marked lane space before the try was released. Breaking this plane of the outside edge (with a foot) before the ball is released would be a free-throw violation.

In this play, it appears the player steps right into the 3rd lane space before moving to the left behind the player in the first marked lane space. Because she broke the plane of the outside edge of the marked lane space (with a foot) before the free throw was released, this would be a free-throw violation.

Here is the updated breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): No violation 82%; Violation 18% (including me).

Keep It Simple Stupid ...
 

Wow. I got this correct but for the wrong reason (why my Algebra II and Trigonometry teacher, Mr. Madden, made us always show our work).

My first look was to White 30's left. At Forum members suggestions I switched my focus to behind White #30. I never thought to focus on White #30's movement to her right.

Clearly a violation. No need for a divider caliper, a Pickett Slide Rule, the Pythagorean Theorem, or a slow motion frame by frame replay. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Added bonus, it's an Audio Daily Double. White #30's right shoe squeaks on the floor as she violates.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times? No way, third time is always the charm.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.E...=0&w=265&h=182

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Bingo.