Question regarding new FT lane rule

[Uncle Ernie]

Hi Folks,

Don't have the bibles handy and got a question that I know you folks will have a handle on.

The lane rule allows only 4 defensive players and 2 offensive player (not including the FThrower) that can be in the lane spaces.

Simple question...if there are no offensive players on the lane during the free throw, can the defensive players move into the space where the offensive players would be??

Thanks,
Erick

[Luv4Asian8]

Yes, slots #2 and #3 are optional if the designated players choose not to hold those spots. the only requirement is that the D has 2 Players on the low block.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Luv4Asian8
"If one takes the easy path, his life will be difficult; If one take the difficult path, his life will be easy."

Totally off-topic, but this just plain isn't true. Hope you quoted it in sarcasm, and not as a truism.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Totally off-topic, but this just plain isn't true. Hope you quoted it in sarcasm, and not as a truism.

Kinda depends on how one defines a difficult life & an easy life, don't it?

You know...give me liberty or give me death...rather die on my feet than live on my knees...those that give up liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...that kind of thing.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Kinda depends on how one defines a difficult life & an easy life, don't it?

I think the problem is that the quote makes it sound like a cause-and-effect relationship. Easy path = hard life. And that just doesn't really seem to be the case. It can certainly work out that way. (Quitting school + getting high probably = hard life). But I don't think it's a necessary thing.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I think the problem is that the quote makes it sound like a cause-and-effect relationship. Easy path = hard life. And that just doesn't really seem to be the case. It can certainly work out that way. (Quitting school + getting high probably = hard life). But I don't think it's a necessary thing.

Mmmmm...I dunno, I still think this is a pretty powerful and generally true statement. Certainly in line with what Socrates said about the unexamined life. Anyway, seems kinda silly to argue over...I mean I personally have never found a stitch in time to save more than seven...but the meaning is clear.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Mmmmm...I dunno, I still think this is a pretty powerful and generally true statement. Certainly in line with what Socrates said about the unexamined life. Anyway, seems kinda silly to argue over...I mean I personally have never found a stitch in time to save more than seven...but the meaning is clear.

The part I object to is that the difficult path leads to an easy life. This if often not true at all. That doesn't make the difficult path wrong -- far from it. But it's best to make the choice with the eyes open, seeing clearly that you are choosing a difficult life. If you doubt the truth of this, talk to any parent who has adopted a child who was over the age of 2. It can work, but it is never easy.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Certainly in line with what Socrates said about the unexamined life.

A very smart man, but he was wrong about that, too.

[rpirtle]

Does everyone agree that a player can occupy the lane space of an opponent if it is unoccupied (within the 2 off & 4 def limitation)?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rpirtle
Does everyone agree that a player can occupy the lane space of an opponent if it is unoccupied?

Yes, but not if it is unexamined.