"What we've got here is failure to communicate." (Cool Hand Luke)
 

Yes there is. What we used to call the first marked lane space was changed last year to being called "the lane area from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks". What we used to call the second marked lane space is now called the first marked lane space.

NFHS 8-1-4: During a free throw, lane spaces may be occupied as follows:
b. The lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks, shall remain vacant.
c. The first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks, shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower. No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy either of these marked lane spaces.

IAABO Responsibilities Are The Same ...
 

2009-11 NFHS BASKETBALL OFFICIALS MANUAL
2.2.3 Free Throws:
B. Lead Official:
6. Watch the first space on the near lane line and all the spaces on the opposite lane line for violations.
C. Trail Official:
5. Observe the thrower and top two spaces on the opposite lane line for violations.

Mea cupla.

Then why did you imply it was a "state" thing since you knew I was referring to the NFHS book?

Billy, get real. You know exactly what I was referring to. You can call it what you want but you and I both know that there's still a space where there's always been a space and no one stands in it.

WTF are you talking about?

I stated we were told in our state meeting this past week that we would be responsible for the entire opposite line.

You then stated that was contrary to the Officials Manual.

I then stated that it must be a state adoption and that I didn't receive an Officials Manual this year. Therefore, I have no idea what this year's Manual states.

No Offense Offered ...
 

BktBallRef: I apologize if you took my post to be sarcastic, but it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I was serious. Last year I got an IAABO refresher exam question wrong because of this problem of what to call what was previously called the first marked lane space. If I can recall correctly, the question read: A defensive player is in the first marked lane space. The official calls a violation. Is the official correct. I answered no, that there was no violation, because, according to the new rule wording last year, the first marked lane space was above the neutral zone, and the defensive player was where he belonged. IAABO claimed the correct answer was that the official was correct. I appealed the question and answer and was told that IAABO still considered the area below the neutral zone to be the first marked lane space, because it was closest to the endline. I thought that you, like IAABO last year, were calling the area below the neutral zone the first marked lane space, which, no matter what IAABO says, is not the first marked lane space, by rule, and I didn't want the error to continue to circulate.

Entire Side, Good Change ...
 

In my opinion, this is a good change. I wish that we would do this in Connecticut.

I believe that the manual comes out only once every other year. The present NFHS manual is labeled 2009-11, so your manual from last year should have the up to date NFHS "national" mechanics.

Please note that anything I post with regard to mechanics is based on three man mechanics, not two man mechanics

We haven't worked anything but three man for varsity games in NC in 19 years.

States still using two man need to catch up with the 21st century.

To be fair, I am not sure how big your state is when it comes to population. Some of this is a financial issue, not a style issue.

Peace

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. It makes no difference to me what the 2009-2011 manual says. I will do as I'm told.

It's nothing that couldn't be overcome with some give and take if people were truly interested in doing what's best for the game.

Sad, But True ...
 

Connecticut is certainly behind almost all other states in terms of three person games. One reason is due to economics. Even though Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states, local towns, and cities, are always arguing with the state over who is supposed to fund education. Property taxes, which are the most common method of funding local education here in Connecticut, are already through the roof. Secondly, maybe because we are one of the wealthiest states, many don't need the second income that be be obtained by officiating, and we simply don't have enough officials to cover three person games. Hell, during influenza season, we barely have enough officials to cover our Friday night games, our biggest basketball night of the week here in Connecticut. Many officials pull double duty on Friday, doing a junior varsity, varsity, doubleheader, or doing a freshman, or middle school game, in the late afternoon, and doing a junior varsity game at night.

In a simlair topic, this will be the first season, you read right, the first season, that we will be getting paid for most preseason scrimmages.

I agree with you in theory.....but.....
 

The reason I said this is because I know by population my state is bigger. There are 778 schools according to the IHSA. That means if they all play, this involves 389 games if they all play on one night (without the consideration of gender). You need 1167 different officials to work that night. Now that is not very realistic and not going to happen that way, but this means just our state has a lot of schools and it is hard to find officials to work all the games

There are not that many basketball licenses in the state of Illinois. And this is without consideration of financial situations and standards and logistics to make that happen in scheduling. And for the record, most games in Illinois are 3 Person.

Peace

Clear ???
 

How would it be clear to me that you don't care what the 2009-2011 manual says when in three previous posts you made it clear to the Forum that you don't have the new manual? If you don't care about what's in the manual, and I believe that you don't, then why refer to the fact that you don't have it on three occasions. If you don't care about what's in the manual, then it shouldn't matter whether you have the current manual, or not. That's the part that I was unclear about.

Exactly. Most games in Illnois are 3 Person, which means it wouldn't be a stretch for the ISHA to require 3 Person. Games would be scheduled on different night. JV officials who are ready would be moved up faster. It actually adds a few years to each official's career.

Fiscally, there's no reason to expect an official to be paid as much to work a 3 man game as he is paid in a 2 man game. It's not physically as exerting and demanding and it makes the game easier to call. I spoke to a NY state official several years ago. He told me he made $83 for a varsity 2 man game. He said that was one of the main reasons the officials in his area wouldn't push for 3 man. I'm not saying that's true everywhere but I've heard those views expressed from others ijn similiar situations.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 

Good point, and one, as an official in a state that does not use three person mechanics on any regular basis, that I have a question about.

When a state, or local region, goes from two person to three person, does the total cost of the officials for that game increase, or does the normal two person total fee get split three ways instead of two ways?

Also, shouldn't the total fee increase a little, since the school is getting a better officiated game?

Are there states, or local regions, where officials in a three person game received a check for a normal two person fee, but the school just passed out three of these checks instead of just two? Now that scenario could be quite expensive.