Rules changes Posted

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

Edited Rule: Clarified that it is a lane violation when you contact the floor, not when the plane has been broken.

That's not a clarification, that's a rule CHANGE.

A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space

Originally Posted by Brad

This doesn't say that you have to put the other foot back -- just that one foot has to be near the line.

What is near? One inch? Six inches? An incomplete rule CHANGE.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

Edited Rule: Clarified that it is a lane violation when you contact the floor, not when the plane has been broken.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

That's not a clarification, that's a rule CHANGE.

A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space

Tony, the above quote by shishstripes is NOT what the NFHS wrote. It is his attempt to paraphrase the actual NFHS clarification. Unfortunately, in doing so, he altered the core of the meaning which incorrectly gave the impression that the NFHS had changed something which they didn't.

The actual text of the NFHS clarification is below. It still should probably be classified as a change or the addition of a new definition, but it is not anything as drastic as what shishstripes wrote.

9-1-3d Clarified that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she
contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space (36 inches
by 36 inches).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9-1-3d Clarified that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space (36 inches by 36 inches).

Like a rebounder falling into the lane, and doing a push up with his hands in the lane, while his feet are still behind the plane of the lane line. That situation has been discussed here on the Forum at least once, with no closure to the interpretation, until now.