Last Gets Gold Medal ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be competing in the 100-meter mosey.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d6f179c190.jpg

Clarification ...
 

I refer to this as a clarification (and much appreciated) rather than a rule change, or an interpretation change, because I believe that the older language, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space", by intent and purpose, was "enough" to call a violation.

I feel that an actual rule change was necessary rather than merely a clarification.

What constitutes leaving a marked lane-space? Is it the same as leaving a throw-in spot? How about being the same as being in the FT lane for a 3-second violation?

Is the definition of “Player location” from Rule 4 is relevant here? Not really because while we can draw a parallel with being inside/outside of the 3pt line, that part of this definition is quite clearly specific to the 3pt line, not the FT lane, so we are left arguing by analogy instead of actually citing a rule.

Additionally, we have this bogus NFHS interpretation for throw-ins from about the same time as the use change being discussed.
From the 2009-10 NFHS Interps:
SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

This is bogus because merely touching a player who is either inbounds or out of bounds does not alter the court status of a player. Player location clearly states the opposite of what the author of this interpretation wrote.

In fact, I’m having difficulty finding a clear rule, not a case play or interp, stating that contacting the court inbounds would constitute leaving a designated throw-in spot. Perhaps this rule needs a rewrite.

And the 3-second violation only talks about the feet, not a player’s hands or body.

Passion ...
 

You are where you are until you get where you're going.

Still think that it's a clarification, based on purpose and intent, I would have called the violation before the rule language changed, but I love Nevadaref's passion regarding this play.

I wish that the NFHS had the same passion, commitment, and attention to detail to rule writing as does Nevadaref. Instead the NFHS often acts like a bunch of paper pushers.

Great point. I'm having a lot of fun picturing it.

Feet out? Hands in? No violation from me.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.r...=0&w=199&h=166

Player Free To Roam All The Way Back To The Sideline ???
 

Is Nevadaref saying that before the 2009-10 rule language change, a player's feet in a marked lane space were limited on only three sides.

Front by the lane line plane. Sides by the lane mark planes.

Back by ...? Player free to roam all the way back to the sideline?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8...=0&w=300&h=300

Person ...
 

We know that a player in bounds is still inbounds if he touches a player (person) who is out of bounds.

7-1-1: A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player/person, on or outside a boundary.

Now let's check out the opposite.

Wouldn't it make sense when a player out of bounds touches a player inbounds that the out of bounds player is now in bounds?

a little off-topic
 

I am the current record holder in the Alaska International Senior Games for both the 1,500m Power Walk and the Standing Long Jump in the Men's 50-54 age category.

https://www.alaskaisg.org/records/power-walk-records/

The definition of a marked lane space is the same pre-2009 and post-2009.

Can you please show me where he stated that definition changed.

Aren't scientists trained to stick to the facts in front of them? ;)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, the spaces have been three feet deep the entire time that I’ve been officiating.

Billy, your idea would cause the following problem: A1 is out of bounds along the sideline of the frontcourt to execute a throw-in. He passes the ball in to A2. A1 now reaches out and puts a hand on defender B1 who is standing inbounds near the sideline. A2 is trapped by defenders B2 and B3, so he quickly passes the ball back to A1. Under your concept, no violation would occur and play would continue because A1 would be considered inbounds. Unfortunately, that means players could use more space than intended by the court boundary. This could confer an unintended and unfair advantage such as detailed herein.

Sorry, but a player is located where he is touching the court, and has nothing to do with contacting another player.

9-1-3d (for contact) and g (for breaking the plane with a foot) seem to cover it (along with e and f for players not in lane spaces)

Throw-in spot not marked lane-space.

You Are Where You Are Until You Get Where You're Going ...
 

Nice, well thought out situation. I see the conflict.

You are where you are until you get where you're going.

Agree, but 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation SITUATION 1 seems to say otherwise.

Of course we still have the age old question: Is a nine year old annual interpretation, that never made it's way in to the casebook, with no relevant rule changes, still valid?

How is a young'un with only eight years of basketball officiating experience supposed to know this?

Stupid NFHS.

Can't Remember The Last Time I Used Rule One ...
 

1996-97 Rulebook 1-5: The lane space marks and neutral zone marks identify areas which extend 36 inches from the outer edge of the lane lines toward the sidelines.

I was grasping at straws as to why this (addition to 2009-10 rulebook of "contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space") was a whole nine yards rule change (as opined by Nevadaref) and not just a clarification by spitballing this (lack of depth) idea in the form of a question without any due diligence on my part.

I knew the lane spaces have always been three feet deep, but just considered that this may have been yet anther example of the NFHS's lack of attention to detail.

In this case, I owe the NFHS an apology. I'm sorry NFHS.

Onto The Court ...