9-1-3d NHFS Editorial Change ? ? ?
 

Your seasoned consideration of this is appreciated . . .
Rule 9-1-3d. says, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space." In view of the wording stated in 9-1-3g, the "vertical plane" seems always to have been an important consideration in whether a lane-space violation occurs. That is, break the plane by putting a foot in the air over the free throw lane and a violation has occurred under the proper circumstances.
But now the 2009-10 NFHS MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGE on 9-1-3d makes this clarification: 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)." That seems to change the "vertical plane" stipulation to permit anything short of contact with the floor within the lane until, for instance, the ball strikes the rim.
Does this '09-10 9-1-3d editorial change invalidate 9-1-3g?

The way I read it, it adds a further restriction. A player violates if they break the plane with their foot, or if they touch the floor in the lane with their hand.

Presumably, breaking the plane with the hand is still not a violation...

The vertical plane restriction on the foot is still in place. This edit just clarifies what has always been the case...that a player who touches outside of the space with any part of their body has left the space.

Pushups ???
 

Has it always been the case? For the past twenty-eight years, if a player in a marked lane space lost his balance and did a "pushup" in the lane, without either of his feet crossing the lane line plane, I would have called the violation, but I'm not sure that previous rule wording would have backed me up on my call, not that anyone would have complained.

As I read it, this change adds an additional element that a player must stay with in the 36in by 36in box. They cannot step back too far.

I believe that restriction has been there for some time.

Yes, the lane space has "always" been 3' deep.

Yes, it has always been the case. The player may not "leave" the space. Other rules support the notion that if a player istouching in the lane, they are in the lane....which means they've left the space. It wasn't so black and white, but it was there.

Context?
 

I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the change to 9-1-3g requiring a foot "near" the outer edge of the lane line -- it prevents some giraffe from doing a split to get around the intent of the rule by sticking a foot near the line and the other foot in position to go around the occupant of the first spot from the outside

I don't see that. The player can still stretch his second foot whereever he wants as long as it stays in the box. He was always restricted from stepping out of that box.

This change was simply made to close a potential loophole that would allow a player to put a hand on the floor in the lane.

BTW, I hate the "near the lane line" change. It's stupid and I'm going to find it very hard to remember when the season starts.

Most HS games I have observed, the players are always breaking the plane before the ball hits, but you rarely see this being called unless it is extreme. How do you all call this? Thanks!

It's only a violation if their feet break the plane, and I don't see this at the high school level. Even the girls are starting to get away from that stupid little (runon sentence alert)pirouette stance that technically breaks the rule but never gets called because it creates no advantage.

Do you imagine that alerting your readers to your sloppy syntax will induce them to excuse you? :p

<strike>yep</strike> nope

How do you call this?
 

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.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

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.

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...???
 

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.

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.

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)
:o

When it's not within 36 inches. :D

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.