Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, it is in mine. The NFHS changed the wording of its FT lane-space violation rule in response to an inquiry from my state interpreter. The impetus was that the action you describe, a player in a marked lane-space losing his balance and placing a hand on the court inside the FT lane without moving his feet, happened to me about a dozen years ago while I was working a HS contest ... the rule only restricted the movement of a player’s foot ... a player could legally do push-ups with his hands and body extended into the lane as long as he kept his feet in the marked lane-space. He even got out the NFHS rules book and consulted the actual text. The rule was changed to contacting the court a year or two afterward.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So if a player falls face first into the lane but his feet don't break the plane, you aren't going to call a violation?

Bingo. This is what I was talking about. I knew that I didn't dream it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS changed the wording of its FT lane-space violation rule in response to an inquiry from my state interpreter ... about a dozen years ago ... the NFHS rules book and consulted the actual text ... The rule was changed to contacting the court a year or two afterward.

Language, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space" has been in the rulebook since at least 1996-97, the earliest rulebook that I have in my library.

No mention of contacting the court, that came later, maybe due to Nevadaref's request for a clarification that moved up the ladder.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No mention of contacting the court, that came later, maybe due to Nevadaref's request for a clarification.

In the 2009-10 rulebbok, the language changed from, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space", to, "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".

Same year casebook play 9.1.3 SITUATION K (as an older case number) showed up.

Timeline (including 2006 Forum post) sounds right for Nevadaref's request for a clarification that moved up the ladder.

We have a winner.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... a 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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So if a player falls face first into the lane but his feet don't break the plane, you aren't going to call a violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.