Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...
 

This came up in Greg Austin's You Tube presentation this morning.

9.1.3 SITUATION K: Before the ball is released on a free-throw attempt by A1, B1 in a marked lane space: (c) loses her balance and touches the inside of the lane with both hands; RULING: Violation in (c). Stepping on or breaking (with a foot) the plane of any boundary spaces along the lane or around the three-point line are violations until restrictions end. (9-1-3 g; 1-5)

Assume that both of B1's feet remain in the marked lane space, she just loses her balance and tips over into the lane, with only her hands touching inside the lane, like doing push-ups. The ruling says illegal, which I agree with, but not by the explanation given (stepping on or breaking with a foot the plane of any boundary spaces along the lane are violations) but rather because of the rule language (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).

Was this situation (loses balance and tips over into the lane, with only hands touching inside the lane) ever clarified by the NFHS as illegal with changes in the rule language and casebook play?

I seem to remember it being clarified as illegal at a local meeting. I also seem to recall my interpreter showing us by doing push-ups on the floor.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., this is right in your wheelhouse.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but rule 9-1-3-d (edited to correct the citation) says "....contacting the court...."

I think you are mis-reading the case play. The "stepping on or breaking (with a foot)" language is correct-- it applies to those parts of the case where that action happened. Since that action didn't happen in part (c), the language doesn't apply. You shouldn't read it as being the reason part (c) is illegal.

Like Roger Maris ...
 

This caseplay (loses balance and tips over into the lane, with only hands touching inside the lane) first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10, marked with an asterisk as new.

Maybe it was then that my local interpreter decided to unilaterally (outside of the NFHS) clarify the interpretation?

Clarification ...
 

Thank you bob jenkins for replying to my odd, poorly written question.

Agree that the reason for (c) being illegal isn't listed in the language of the caseplay, but only in the language of the rulebook.

Even I'm not sure what I'm asking. How about this ...

Did the NFHS ever find it necessary to clarify this as being illegal because the feet never violate?

Or was this all a part of a bad dream?

Annual interpretations, casebook plays, and rulebooks (including actual rulebooks and casebooks made from dead trees) have all been searched with no success, so I've tried to do my due diligence.

My rulebook/casebook library only goes back to 1996-97.

Best I could do was to confirm that the play first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10.

Rules Expert ...
 

If the rules and caseplays had stayed the same over the past forty years I'd probably be considered what'cha call a rules expert.

No idea whether the NFHS felt it necessary; I don't think it is.

Case play part (a) (and maybe part (b) depending on how the rule is read), are relevant to rule 9-1-3g. This is listed in the case play.

Case play part (c) (and maybe part (b) ) are relevant to rule 9-1-3d. This could have been listed as a cite in the case play, but most of us can make the leap to find it.

Tunnel Vision ...
 

Thanks for responding bob jenkins.

I'm now leaning (no pun intended) that the NFHS did not have to clarify, but rather, it was probably only a local issue with my local interpreter responding to a question from a member with tunnel vision (like me sometimes) as to why it was a violation if the feet never broke the plane. Like it happened yesterday, I can still picture my interpreter demonstrating the play with arms twirling like a windmill followed by push-ups.

This morning, in his You Tube presentation, Greg Austin showed a very funny video of a girl in the first lane space losing her balance and twirling her arms like to windmill, for what seemed like a long time, hopelessly trying maintain her balance to stay upright and not violate by falling into the lane, which she eventually did. She gave it her best effort. The video should have been shown with the theme song from The Benny Hill Show (Yakety Sax) playing in the background.

Sorry I bothered everybody.

I don't know how to embed a video, but is this what you're talking about:
https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/25511236

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 with our local commissioner. I did not call a violation on the play and he did. He was aware that I knew the rules quite well and asked me about the play after the game. He was shocked to hear that the rule only restricted the movement of a player’s foot and as an example I told him that 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.

Billy:

My NFHS Rules Books and Casebooks prior to the 2019-20 School Year are in the attic and I do not feel like climbing into "The Attic" to look at them, LOL!

MTD, Sr.


Nevada:

I do remember you discussing your Play years ago.

MTD, Sr.


Addressing Nevada's comment:

The current CB Play 9.1.3K was added to the Casebook with the 2019-20 School Year. Without climbing into "The Attic" I do know that CB Play 9.1.3J had been CB Play 9.1.3K for a number of years and without climbing into "The Attic" I cannot tell you when or why it was changed to CB Play 9.1.3J.

The current CB Play 9.1.3K was added to the 2019-20 Casebook.

A question for Nevada: What School Year did you have your Play? And are you able to post a copy of R9-S1-A3g from that School Year so that we can compare it with the 2020-21 NFHS Baskeball Rules.

I did find a thread which you (Nevada) started on Mar. 01, 2006 (2005-06 School Year): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...violation.html I am surprised that I did not comment but I do agree with your analysis. More importantly, the 2005-06 NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules language is exactly the samee and is still the same as we speak. Which me wonder how the NFHS Rules Committee came to such a Ruling in the current CB Play 9.1.3Kc.


Time to go back to retired life and the Olympics.

Everyone: Please have a great weekend!

MTD, Sr.

Asterisk ...
 

New casebook play (different older number, same play) in 2009-10.

Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This (The Eurythmics, 1983) ...
 

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

Cue The Benny Hill Show Theme Song (Yakety Sax) ...
 

Thanks DrPete. This is the Greg Austin You Tube presentation video that sparked my deep dive into the casebook play (though video and casebook play not exactly the same).

No Player Shall Enter Or Leave A Marked Lane Space ...
 

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.

Thanks Nevadaref ...
 

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.