neutral boxes

pinchmaster · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 06:04pm

The two 12 by 8 inch boxes on the lowerend of the lane.For example, why are they 12+ 8.Why is that area neutral.Can you stand on them but not break the plane ?were they always part of the lane or some new rule written later on?

BktBallRef · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 08:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by pinchmaster
The two 12 by 8 inch boxes on the lowerend of the lane. For example, why are they 12+ 8.

Why does it matter? It's just the size that was chosen.

Quote:

Why is that area neutral?

To give the player in the first space more of an advantage.

Quote:

Can you stand on them but not break the plane?

NCAA - Yes.
NFHS - No.

Quote:

Were they always part of the lane or some new rule written later on?

Always? Well, I doubt that Dr. Naismith had them in his original 13 rules.

Why so much interest in something that means so little?

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 26th, 2005 at 08:19 PM]

QuebecRef87 · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:11pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Why so much interest in something that means so little?

Maybe he's doing a thesis about the neutral boxes...

tjones1 · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 27, 2005, 02:47am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by QuebecRef87

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Why so much interest in something that means so little?

Maybe he's doing a thesis about the neutral boxes...

If so, good luck writing a paper on that!

Rick Durkee · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 01:25pm

I swear that on Saturday, February 26, I found an article in a 1962 newspaper that announced rule changes that had been adopted for the next basketball season. (I know, one of you guys has this in your attic, but I wasn't even born yet!) I even made a copy of the article, but it is at home and I am not right now. Off the top of my head, I remember two of the changes. One was the introduction of the block between the first and second positions. The article mentioned that it was to discourage contact during rebound action, but it did not mention why that specific size had been chosen. The other one that I remember was that they stopped the practice of shooting free throws for player control fouls.

Does anybody care what the third one was?

bigzilla · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 01:37pm

Was it offensive goal tending...the anti-Wilt rule?

No dunking was the anti-Alcindor rule, but I think the early 60's was when offensive goal tending was established because of Chamberlin.

Rick Durkee · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 05:03pm

I was off by a few weeks, it was Nov of 1961 and not 1962. The third rule change was to stop the clock after violations to allow for substitutions.

I don't know if anybody really cares, but here is a link to the article that I found.

http://www.orangeandblackforever.com/hooprules.jpg

bigzilla · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 07:58pm

Well, I missed that one. However, I did visit your website. That's a great project you are undertaking. Are they closing the school because of its physical condition, building a new one, etc?

Rick Durkee · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 09:06pm

Thank you for checking out the site. The project has been great fun. They are closing the school for several reasons. The condition of the 1922 building and the money required to renovate and build new space was probably the most significant. The town has voted to send the kids to Keene. Some of the kids in town are already going to Keene and they have a 45 mile round trip bus ride every school day and have to go through a corner of Massachusetts to get there.

Since I notice that you are one of those associated with law...I am a law junkie, I don't know anything about practicing law, but I love to follow court cases, especially in the federal system. Anyway, I use to play pick-up ball with a local attorney and he once asked me whether mens rea was required to call a kicking violation. From there we came up with a few other silly jokes. The only others that I remember were when I officiated men's league games across state lines that I was working Pro Hac Vice, and that when I waved off a basket it was dismissed as improvidently granted.

bigzilla · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 28, 2005, 11:21pm

The jr hi I attended was razed in the 90's (built in the 50's or 60's) when they found that the interior walls of about half the school classrooms had shifted two inches to the north. Tore it down, built a new one. On the other hand, another jr hi in town was the high school my father went to in the 30's, and it is still going strong.

Waive the tort and sue in assumpsit!