8-1-4 Free Throw Lane Spaces

[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

[tjones1]

Yes, if they wanted to they could. I'm not sure why they would. But they are permitted to under 8-1-4f under NFHS.

[BillyMac]

NFHS rules now refer to the bottom space, occupied by defenders, as the first lane space, and the rules now refer to the area below that first marked lane space as the vacant area. Yet, the IAABO manual, refers to the bottom space, occupied by defenders, as the second lane space, with the same wording on the IAABO Refresher Exam. Good grief.

[Nevadaref]

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....

Georgia seems to be doing something different from the rest of the NFHS states. What I have told you is correct if your state follows the normal NFHS rules.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Georgia seems to be doing something different from the rest of the NFHS states. What I have told you is correct if your state follows the normal NFHS rules.

Thank you, sir....case closed.....Bishopcolle

[Nevadaref]

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.

Sounds as if GA is using the NCAAW rules as previously mentioned by cford. Point #6 in particular makes me believe that the NCAAW rules are in force as under NFHS rules the opponent would violate as soon as he crossed the FT lane line. Contacting the thrower is not even a concern under NFHS rules, but for NCAAW the player may enter the lane upon the release of the try and thus contact with the thrower must be carefully observed.