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

[Freddy]

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?

[rsl]

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[SAK]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SAK

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I believe that restriction has been there for some time.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[amusedofficial]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

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.