8-1-4 Free Throw Lane Spaces

[cford]

The rule and case book seem to contradict itself. It specifically says that "No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy" the first marked lane spaces but it doesn't specifically state this for the 2nd and 3rd marked spaces. The case book specifically states "four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces." Obviously the Case Book clearly states what is legal and what is not legal but is this what they were intending? Why would it not be written directly in the Rule Book what is legal?

2008-09 Rule Book:
8-1-4 . . . During a free throw, lane spaces may be occupied as follows:
a. Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.
b. The lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks, shall remain vacant.
c. The first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks, shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower. No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy either of these marked lane spaces.
d. The second marked lane spaces on each side may be occupied by teammates of the free thrower.
e. The third marked lane spaces on each side, nearest the free thrower, may be occupied by the opponents of the free thrower.
f. Players shall be permitted to move along and across the lane to occupy a vacant marked lane space within the limitations listed in this rule.
g. Not more than one player may occupy any part of a marked lane space.

2008-09 Case Book:
*8.1.4 SITUATION: A1 is at the free-throw line for the first attempt of a bonus situation. In (a), two Team B and two Team A players occupy the first and second marked lane spaces, respectively. B3 occupies one of the third marked lane spaces. A3 attempts to occupy the vacant third marked lane space; or (b) two Team B players occupy the first marked lane spaces. The offense chooses not to occupy any marked lane spaces. Two more Team B players choose to occupy the second marked lane spaces.
RULING: Illegal in (a), A3 is not permitted to occupy the third marked lane space. Only two offensive players may occupy marked lane spaces during a free throw. If the improper alignment is not corrected prior to the thrower having the ball at his/her disposal, a free-throw violation shall be called on Team A immediately. Legal in (b), four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces.

Shouldn't the Rule book say:
d. The second marked lane spaces on each side may be occupied by teammates of the free thrower or if they choose not to occupy these lane spaces then the opponents of the free thrower may occupy these lane spaces.

[Nevadaref]

There is no contradiction.
What you are inquiring about is clearly stated in part f.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by cford

The rule and case book seem to contradict itself. It specifically says that "No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy" the first marked lane spaces but it doesn't specifically state this for the 2nd and 3rd marked spaces. The case book specifically states "four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces." Obviously the Case Book clearly states what is legal and what is not legal but is this what they were intending? Why would it not be written directly in the Rule Book what is legal?

2008-09 Rule Book:
8-1-4 . . . During a free throw, lane spaces may be occupied as follows:
a. Marked lane spaces may be occupied by a maximum of four defensive and two offensive players.
b. The lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone
marks, shall remain vacant.
c. The first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks, shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower. No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy either of these
marked lane spaces.
d. The second marked lane spaces on each side may be occupied by teammates of the free thrower.
e. The third marked lane spaces on each side, nearest the free thrower, may be occupied by the opponents of the free thrower.
f. Players shall be permitted to move along and across the lane to occupy a vacant marked lane space within the limitations listed in this rule.
g. Not more than one player may occupy any part of a marked lane space.

2008-09 Case Book:
*8.1.4 SITUATION: A1 is at the free-throw line for the first attempt of a bonus situation. In (a), two Team B and two Team A players occupy the first and second marked lane spaces, respectively. B3 occupies one of the third marked lane spaces. A3 attempts to occupy the vacant third marked lane space; or (b) two Team B players occupy the first marked lane spaces. The offense chooses not to occupy any marked lane spaces. Two more Team B players choose to occupy the second marked lane spaces.
RULING: Illegal in (a), A3 is not permitted to occupy the third marked lane space. Only two offensive players may occupy marked lane spaces during a free throw. If the improper alignment is not corrected prior to the thrower having the ball at his/her disposal, a free-throw violation shall be called on Team A immediately. Legal in (b), four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces.

Shouldn't the Rule book say:
d. The second marked lane spaces on each side may be occupied by teammates of the free thrower or if they choose not to occupy these lane spaces then the opponents of the free thrower may occupy these lane spaces.

I don't think it contradicts itself at all, personally. The first lane spaces can only be occupied by the opponent of the FTer. Never, under any circumstance may a teammate of the FTer occupy the first lane space. The other four lane spaces can be occupied by either team (but the specified team has preference) as long as 8-1-4a is not violated.

For instance, if B is shooting and chooses not to occupy any spot on the lane, you could have 4 As on the lane line. You must have two As in the first spot. The other two As can occupy any available space. They could both be in the second spots, both in the third spots, one could be in the second spot while the other is in the third spot, both on the left side, both on the right side...

-Josh

[Bishopcolle]

Josh quoted: I don't think it contradicts itself at all, personally. The first lane spaces can only be occupied by the opponent of the FTer. Never, under any circumstance may a teammate of the FTer occupy the first lane space. The other four lane spaces can be occupied by either team (but the specified team has preference) as long as 8-1-4a is not violated.


Disagree with the red underlined part....8-1-4.e says the Thrower's teammates may NOT occupy the spots closest to the thrower (spot 3), even if left empty.....

Bishopcolle

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

I don't think it contradicts itself at all, personally. The first lane spaces can only be occupied by the opponent of the FTer. Never, under any circumstance may a teammate of the FTer occupy the first lane space. The other four lane spaces can be occupied by either team (but the specified team has preference) as long as 8-1-4a is not violated.


Disagree with this part....8-1-4.e says the Thrower's teammates may NOT occupy the spots closest to the thrower (spot 3), even if left empty.....

Bishopcolle

You're not correct for NFHS play or NCAA Mens' game.
You are correct for an NCAA Womens' game.
You might be working from last year's NFHS rules book. There was a change in the FT alignment this season. It now matches the NCAA Mens.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You're not correct for NFHS play or NCAA Mens' game.
You are correct for an NCAA Womens' game.
You might be working from last year's NFHS rules book. There was a change in the FT alignment this season. It now matches the NCAA Mens.

NevadaRef: We covered each other in the same moment...I don't understand your reply...Which is not correct?

[cford]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is no contradiction.
What you are inquiring about is clearly stated in part f.

Oh....so Team A is allowed to have it's 2 players in the 3rd marked lane space?

Forgive my ignorance, in Georgia I've been under the impression that players may not take the lane space of another team even if that team chooses not to use it. I'm now wondering if this is a Georgia deviation OR if I was taught wrong back in the day (and I have been perpetuating the myth.)

If anyone from Georgia knows the answer please let me know. (Georgia does deviate from NFHS and uses Womens NCAA Mechanics for some things.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

NevadaRef: We covered each other in the same moment...I don't understand your reply...Which is not correct?

The following statement is not correct:

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

Disagree with this part....8-1-4.e says the Thrower's teammates may NOT occupy the spots closest to the thrower (spot 3), even if left empty.....

Bishopcolle

The first marked lane space in NFHS is now ABOVE the block. The spot BELOW the block nearest the basket no longer exists and must be left vacant this season. That shifts everyone up one space, so the spot nearest the shooter has returned to the NFHS game (It left in 2003.), and may be occupied by a player from either team. Of course, the defense has the right to it, if desired.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

Disagree with the red underlined part....8-1-4.e says the Thrower's teammates may NOT occupy the spots closest to the thrower (spot 3), even if left empty.....

Pssst, no it doesn't. It didn't last year either.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cford

Oh....so Team A is allowed to have it's 2 players in the 3rd marked lane space?

Forgive my ignorance, in Georgia I've been under the impression that players may not take the lane space of another team even if that team chooses not to use it. I'm now wondering if this is a Georgia deviation OR if I was taught wrong back in the day (and I have been perpetuating the myth.)

If anyone from Georgia knows the answer please let me know. (Georgia does deviate from NFHS and uses Womens NCAA Mechanics for some things.)

I can't tell you how Georgia does it, but I can confirm for you that under NFHS rules A2 and A3 can be in the 2nd and 3rd lane spaces on either the same side of the lane or opposite sides while A1 is attempting a FT. B4 and B5 must be in the bottom two spaces nearest the basket, which are ABOVE the block this season.

The NCAA Womens' game has locked all of the spaces as designated for one team only, and even if that team elects not to occupy such a space the opponent may NOT fill it. That rule is simply different from NFHS and NCAA Mens'.

[Bishopcolle]

Whew! Thanks for the clarifications!!!!!!! I DO appreciate your insight....

PSssst,,,you too, Snaqwells!!!!

[PAULK1]

This is the slide verbatum from the GA officials clinic this was a NFHS slide.

Free Throws 8-1-4b - e
1. During the administration of free throws that require teams along the lane lines, all players will be moved up one space from the end line with the two spaces below the “block” being vacant.
2. The two lane spaces above the “blocks” must be occupied by the opponent of the free-thrower.
3. The next two lane spaces are *designated for teammates of the free- thrower.
4. The two lane spaces nearest the free-thrower are *designated for the opponent.
5. The *designated lane spaces may, or may not, be occupied, but can only be occupied by members of the *designated team.
6. Do NOT allow an opponent of the free-thrower to cross the free throw line and make contact with the free-thrower prior to the ball contacting the rim.

Ga was one of the states that experimented with this rule for the Fed last year.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

This is the slide verbatum from the GA officials clinic this was a NFHS slide.

Free Throws 8-1-4b - e
1. During the administration of free throws that require teams along the lane lines, all players will be moved up one space from the end line with the two spaces below the “block” being vacant.
2. The two lane spaces above the “blocks” must be occupied by the opponent of the free-thrower.
3. The next two lane spaces are *designated for teammates of the free- thrower.
4. The two lane spaces nearest the free-thrower are *designated for the opponent.
5. The *designated lane spaces may, or may not, be occupied, but can only be occupied by members of the *designated team.
6. Do NOT allow an opponent of the free-thrower to cross the free throw line and make contact with the free-thrower prior to the ball contacting the rim.

Ga was one of the states that experimented with this rule for the Fed last year.

Sorry, everyone, but does this apply only to GA? Nevadaref? This contradicts your statement. I understand from your statement that the GA rule is not the current accepted NFHS practice, so I can ignore this application. The 3 spots are available to the offensive team, if the defense doesnt want them?

Thanks for the clarifications....

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

Sorry, everyone, but does this apply only to GA? Nevadaref? This contradicts your statement. I understand from your statement that the GA rule is not the current accepted NFHS practice, so I can ignore this application. The 3 spots are available to the offensive team, if the defense doesnt want them?

Thanks for the clarifications....

As far as GA, check with them. They probably had special exceptions to 8-1-4 last year since they were conducting an experiment for the NFHS.

The bottom spaces must be occupied by the opponents. A maximum of two offensive players may occupy the lane spaces.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

As far as GA, check with them. They probably had special exceptions to 8-1-4 last year since they were conducting an experiment for the NFHS.

The bottom spaces must be occupied by the opponents. A maximum of two offensive players may occupy the lane spaces.

Tjones: Thanks, I know this...the question raised by PaulK1's post was about spot 3....If vacated by the defense, can the offense take them? GA's rules says no, but I believe from Nevadaref that the NFHS interpretation is that they can...Thanks for the reply...

Bishopcolle