Please tell me what I am misunderstanding here:
RULE BOOK states: (Rule 8 ART 3) During a free throw when the lane spaces may be occupied: a. Each of the lane spaces adjacent to the end line shall be occupied by one opponent of the free thrower unless the resuming of play procedure is in effect.
b. A teammate of the free thrower is entitled to the next adjacent lane space on each side and to each other alternate position along each lane line.
This is hard to draw a picture but here's a try:
B1 B2
A1 A2
B3 B4
A4 A5
--------
A3 (B5 would be beyond the 3pt line/FT line extended)
CASE BOOK states:(8.1.2A) "Rule 8-1 CLEARLY states which lane spaces must be occupied (and by whom) and also states who is entitled to occupy the remaining lane spaces .........each of the first marked spaces nearest the end line shall be occupied by one opponent of the free thrower. ..........A teammate of the free thrower is entitled to the next adjacentmarked lane space on each side and to ONE OF THE TWO additioal marked spaces along each lane line. So that would look like:
B1 B2
A1 A2
B3 B4
A2 B5
---------
A3 (A5 would be beyond 3pt/FT line) Who the heck has the priority?

My guess is the Case Book tries to shortcut the language of the Rule Book ... the Case Book does not use the term "alternating" like the Rule Book does and it ends up confusing things.

In your second example, A5 would have an entitlement/priority to the space occupied by B5.

In any case, no coach whould generally allow the first scenario to occur. B5 would be free to cherry pick an easy 2 points on a miss and quick fullcourt pass (or a made basket if B1 was fast on the throwin).

"ONE OF THE TWO additioal marked spaces along each lane line"

In other words, on EACH lane line, a teammate of the free throw shooter is entitled to one of the spaces. That is, on EACH side of the lane they are entitled to one of the two spots.

I wish they would just adopt the college rule, then we would not have 9 players going for a rebound and then both coaches yapping "OVER THE BAAAAACK" :)

Occupy FT lane lines
 

I understand the NF rules committee did consider the six persons on the FT line. But with our no entry until the ball touches the rim, thought it was not necessary to eliminate the last two positions. It would certainly make eaiser officiating rebounding after a missed FT if only 7 players were in there. I think it was discussed to go to 6 players and go back entry on release, but it stayed the same as last year. I wonder how many officials like entry on release or hitting the rim?

Re: Occupy FT lane lines
 

Jerry

I like to NCAA men's rule (which i beleive was adopted by the women's rules committee for next year) to which you are refering. Players can go on the release, but only 2 teammates of the shooter and 4 opponents are allowed on the lane. It really does seem to have reduced the rough play. I wish the NFHS would adopt this change. it'd be nice not to worry about whether B1 went in early (i.e. before the ball hit the rim) and to really be able to concentrate on officiating the contact -- which occurs anyway.

Jake

Re: Re: Occupy FT lane lines
 

I think you're missing the point of having the players release when the ball hits as opposed to when the shot is released. The purpose is to eliminate all the extra contact that occurs when a FT is made. You've got all this contact and the shot goes in. Even if the rule was changed, you still have to watch for players entering the lane too early.

I like the rule the way it is.

Re: Re: Re: Occupy FT lane lines
 

i understand "the point" of the rule, i just don't feel like the rule accomplishes what it sets out to do. my point is that there is still plenty of contact that occurs and with "rough play" yet again being a P.O.E. i'd like to see the rules committee take it a step further.

IMHO...less bodies on the lane = less opportunity for contact (legal or otherwise).

jake

Re: Re: Re: Re: Occupy FT lane lines
 

I think the only intent of the rule was to eliminate excess contact on made FTs. The rule does accomplish that purpose. I don't see that the NF was trying to accomplish any other goal.

On the surface, fewer players on the lane appears to be a good idea. But we weren't privy to the discussions, therefore we don't know what the reasoning was that left the rule unchanged.