From the test, Marked Lane Spaces

[agr8zebra]

What are you guys thinking about this question?

Opponents of the free thrower may never occupy the second marked lane spaces.

[jdw3018]

False.

[Adam]

Agreed, it's false.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by agr8zebra

What are you guys thinking about this question?

Opponents of the free thrower may never occupy the second marked lane spaces.

That is true for NCAA-W's playing rules, but not for NCAA-M or NFHS.
I believe that is the point of the question.

[agr8zebra]

Opponents of the free thrower may never occupy the second marked lane spaces.

It is FALSE

Found a case book interp... Page 62 8.1.4 sit b

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by agr8zebra

Opponents of the free thrower may never occupy the second marked lane spaces.

It is FALSE

Found a case book interp... Page 62 8.1.4 sit b

You seem to be a fairly new official, certainly less than 10 years. That's not a criticism in any way, just noting it because it has a bearing on your perspective. Those of us who have been around long enough to remember when the NFHS went to the 4 v 2 player count along the lane and also reduced the number of marked lane-spaces on each side from four to three back in the 2003-04 season, recall that a comment was included regarding the rule change specifying that players could fill any space left vacant by the opponents other than the bottom two. So the answer to this question has always been clear for NFHS rules.

Lastly, the current Rules Book also gives you a clear answer on this:
8-1-4(f): "Players shall be permitted to move along and across the lane to occupy a vacant space within the limitations listed in this rule."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is true for NCAA-W's playing rules, but not for NCAA-M or NFHS.
I believe that is the point of the question.

It might also be to hammer home that the spaces immediately above the block, because of this rule change, are now the first spaces. Somebody somewhere would otherwise attempt to enforce random aspects of lane alignment as if they were the second spaces. Would make for an interesting night to be that person's partner.

[agr8zebra]

Been doing it much longer that 10+ years

Something I post stuff to make people look and think. I have worked many a game, in CA, NV and UT, where I was prepared to let Team B be in lane space, but my partner tells a player he can't be there so the space is left empty and the player move to the 3rd spot.

What will become of this rule change is we as officials will once again have to watch for more fouls committed by B2 on the free throw shooter A as they try to Box him/her out or try to disconcert Shooter A.

[Adam]

I'm not sure it's going to mean more fouls B2, as it's not really that much closer to the shooter.

I've done games under both, as the Iowa girls did it this way for a few years while the boys went strictly with the FED rules. I didn't notice any discernable increase in disconcertion efforts, either.

[Back In The Saddle]

I've been working with this rule all summer, and have noticed no increase in fouls on the shooter or in disconcertion. However, I did notice increased aggressiveness by the player in the second place as he/she tried harder to get the rebound. But this subsided after a while.

[jdw3018]

I don't think fouls on the shooter will be any more common. Since players still cannot enter the lane until the ball hits, there's no time to back into and displace the shooter before most players will be crashing down for the rebound.

[agr8zebra]

Well now that the marked 3rd space is in the postion of what what the marked 4th lane space last year which could not be occupied, I am sure those agressive coaches and players will try to seize the opportuinty to get at the shooter some how.