9-1-3d NHFS Editorial Change ? ? ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Call it once early, again if it happens at the other end, and it won't happen again the rest of the game.
Unless you want to allow it the entire game, let it get worse, then call it in the last four minutes. Not a real good alternative.

I'm wondering how many are seeing this regularly.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even the girls are starting to get away from that stupid little pirouette stance that technically breaks the rule but never gets called because it creates no advantage.

I've never understood why this stance is almost always used by girls, while I've seldom, if ever, seen this stance used by guys. Hormones ???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've never understood why this stance is almost always used by girls, while I've seldom, if ever, seen this stance used by guys. Hormones ???

I've noticed the higher level of play, the girls stop doing it.

[Nevadaref]

This is another editorial change which a discussion on this forum is directly responsible for generating.
I made the point several years ago that a player who kept both feet in the marked lane space, but bent down and placed a hand in the lane was technically not breaking any rule.
Some people stated that they would penalize the player anyway, but it was agreed that this situation was not clear. Disconcertion was a possibility as well, but "leaving the marked lane space" was up for interpretation.
The fact is that this extra restriction is now in place to clarify the desire of the NFHS committee.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is another editorial change which a discussion on this forum is directly responsible for generating.
I made the point several years ago that a player who kept both feet in the marked lane space, but bent down and placed a hand in the lane was technically not breaking any rule.
Some people stated that they would penalize the player anyway, but it was agreed that this situation was not clear. Disconcertion was a possibility as well, but "leaving the marked lane space" was up for interpretation.
The fact is that this extra restriction is now in place to clarify the desire of the NFHS committee.

Therefore, based on what you know of the committee's intent, does this editorial change to 9-1-3d still not allow a player to break the 9-1-3g "vertical plane"?
The NFHS "Officials' Quarterly" (Fall, 2009), p.18, states: "New language in Rule 9-1-3d states that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space (3 feet by 3 feet)." That seems to change the "vertical plane" requirement of 9-1-3g.
Yet, on the other side of the matter it seems, Todd Apo writes on page 25, "Players are attempting to gain a rebounding advantage by violating the free-throw restrictions and entering the lane early. No player shall enter, leave or touch the court outside the marked lane space...". Without citing either rule, that seems to imply that the "vertical plane" requirement is still in force.
I guess what's throwing me for a loop is that I've received word from a representative of our state association that, "...you have a violation only if the player contacts any part of the court outside the line space.
Remove vertical plane from your list of things to watch."

I'm looking for a positive conclusion one way or the other on this and appreciate the insights thusfar shared.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I guess what's throwing me for a loop is that I've received word from a representative of our state association that, "...you have a violation only if the player contacts any part of the court outside the line space.
Remove vertical plane from your list of things to watch."

I'm looking for a positive conclusion one way or the other on this and appreciate the insights thusfar shared.

Your state rep is going to find out that he is wrong.

The part about the foot being beyond the vertical plane is in a different subsection. There has been no mention of a change to that. They are simply adding to part "d" to say that leaving the space is equivalent to touching outside the space.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your state rep is going to find out that he is wrong.

The part about the foot being beyond the vertical plane is in a different subsection. There has been no mention of a change to that. They are simply adding to part "d" to say that leaving the space is equivalent to touching outside the space.

I concur with Camron. Your state rep isn't right.

The contacting of the floor outside of the lane space is an additional requirement. Breaking the plane with a foot is still in force.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I concur with Camron. Your state rep isn't right.

The contacting of the floor outside of the lane space is an additional requirement. Breaking the plane with a foot is still in force.

Me, three.

It's a violation if ANY of the following happen:
a) break the plane with the foot, OR
b) touch the court outside the space, OR
c) have neither foot near the lane

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Me, three.

It's a violation if ANY of the following happen:
a) break the plane with the foot, OR
b) touch the court outside the space, OR
c) have neither foot near the lane

When is the foot not near the lane anymore?
0-1 inch?
1-2 inches?

(Or has this been discussed before....been away and preoccupied for a while)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CoachP

When is the foot not near the lane anymore?
0-1 inch?
1-2 inches?

(Or has this been discussed before....been away and preoccupied for a while)

When it's not within 36 inches.

Yeah, we hammered on this "requirement" a few months ago when the rule changes came out.
People pretty much thought that it was an unenforceable regulation because it was too vague.