Free Throw Lane Positions
 

Rule 8.1.4

Doesn't this rule state that the first two lane positions MUST be occupied by the opponents of the free throw shooter? For all free throws? I had a coach try to use the first free throw as a time out and pull all her players to the bench while the shooter shot her first shot. I told her that the first two lane spaces had to be occupied by two of her players and she threw a hissy. She "never" had to do that before. I calmly explained that it's a NFHS rule and then she wanted to see the rule book later. She didn't ask at the end of the game, so I didn't show her the rule. I just wanted to make sure I'm in the right on this one. I've honestly never had anyone question that before.

Yep, you are right. However, whenever the ball is to remain dead following the final FT, such as with technical foul FTs or intentional foul FTs, no players shall be permitted to occupy lane spaces.

*10.1.5 SITUATION C: The calling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. B1 and B2 are: (a) huddling in the lane; or (b) two B players are not occupying the first two marked spaces next to the end line as required. RULING: In (a), if the huddle delays the officials' administration, Team B is warned. The warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach. If Team B had been previously warned for delay, a technical foul shall be charged. In (b), Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is delay, a technical foul shall be charged to Team B. (4-47)

The first spots MUST be occupied for all FTs except those where the ball will be dead after the last FT even if the last FT is missed. Examples of times where the spots may/must be vacant: FTs for a technical foul, intentional foul, flagrant foul; FTs for a foul that occurs as time expires for a quarter. FTs for a foul when another foul has also been called (penalizing in order of occurance...only the last in the sequence will have rebounders on the lane).

One exception where the spaces can remain empty is during FTs immediately following a timout or intermission (resuming play procedure). The FTs may be started with the spaces empty, however, if the FT is missed, it is a violation and a replacement try is awarded. If the FT is missed again with the spaces still vacant, it is a T.

Rare Situation
 

I believe that both spaces do not have to be filled when the "defensive" team has only one player left in the game and still has a chance to win the game????

I agree.

You are correct. I actually authored this play on this very forum a few years ago, and the NFHS took it and issued an official interpretation.

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 2: Team A started the game with seven team members in the scorebook. All team members foul out but one, A1. Team A is leading by eight points with 38 seconds left in the game with a chance to win. A1 fouls B2 with Team B in the bonus. A1 occupies one of the first marked lane spaces for the free throw, with no teammate to occupy the other required space. RULING: By rule, a team may continue to play with one player if that team has an opportunity to win the game. Accordingly, since Team A can only put one player in the required free-throw marked lane space, it cannot be penalized. Further, Team B may not occupy the first marked lane space left vacant by Team A. (3-1-1 Note, 8-1-3)

Not quite, Camron.

When the RPP is in effect, A1 can take his/her first FT attempt with no one from B in the lower blocks. If A1 misses the FT, then B has violated, and A1 gets a replacement throw. B must occupy the lower blocks for the replacement FT and if they don't, a technical foul is assessed when the official is ready to administer the FT. (10.1.5A)

Going over some rules review between plays of SNF (Go Colts) and came upon this post from last year.
Rule 8-1 Art4c says "...SHALL be occupied by opponents of the free thrower."
In the case book, 8.1.3 situation says in the ruling, "...the first mark spaces MUST be occupied by opponents..." I assume SHALL means MUST because SHALL is defined as mandatory. Not trying to split hairs but I suggest that the rule and case sit should use the same words. I can see the coach in the above mentioned sit arguing the verbiage. If it happens to me, I'll pull out my Webster Pocket Dictionary, not the rule book.;)

They'd have to know the rule, in detail before that ever happens.

IOW....

Shall and must are the same. Any attorney can tell you that is one of the first things that is taught at law school.
But just for the sake of clarity the governing body at one level of a sport which I officiate just decided to change all of the instances of "shall" to "must". I can't recall right now, if that was soccer or basketball.