Well, crap. I needed to read that more carefully. I'm going to have to read the complete rule later before replying further on this. This may be an unintended loop hole, so I'll need to get to it more carefully tonight in the hotel rather than multi-task.

I’m not sure why you would think there is a loop hole. 9-1-3d identifies the 36x36 lane space which would mean there is a defined back (4th boundary) to the lane space and 9-1-3g says the “The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space.”
Seems pretty clear that no feet can be brake the vertical plane of the 36x36 lane space.

I mostly agree with you. I will call it a violation if it comes up and will explain it just like we have here.

But . . . If we translate the last 2 sentences of (g) to mean that, what are all those other words for. And why did they use "shall" for the "near" foot and "may" for the other foot. I just think the verbage leaves a lot to be desired. But I understand its' intent.

Looks to me like the Fed said, "throw some words at the end of (g) to keep a player from sneaking around the back of his opponent."

And then ask yourself, how will you know if the foot breaks the plane of the back of the lane space?

Per my training instructors, that was their intended purpose.

Last season I saw this a handful of times. Now that the lane spaces have been moved away from the basket, players in the second set of spaces are looking to quickly move around the back of the players in the first spaces try to get inside position. I seem to see it more in girls games.

That is why Fed wants one foot to be "near" the lane line. That should make it harder to move around the back.

:(Yep, stupid rule IMO. But I'm not king.

"It's Good To Be The King" (Mel Brooks)
 

As Good A Reason As Any ...
 

“Because it’s there.” (George Mallory, 1922)

Yes it's a violation!
 

I had that very same scenario in a G MS game last week. My partner on whose line it was to call and to his credit was right on it. The player gave me the deer in the headlights look. I simply commented that it was an illegal move. We got nothing from the coach. Play on!

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

I've been watching this thread develop and have decided to participate. The question appears to be whether or not the "foot-plane rule" applies to the back "invisible" marked lane space boundary. Doesn't the red highlighted portion, below, answer that question? I don't understand the confusion. What am I missing?
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 (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by a lane-space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (12 inches by 36 inches) designated by a neutral zone. A player shall position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space.

Shaq,
Not sure what part of the rule you are deeming as stupid, but I will tell you that as soon as I saw the rule change up the lane by one position last year, as a coach, I saw a large loophole. When the offensive player in the second lane position placed himself/herself at the very back of the lane position, it was very difficult for the defender in the first lane position to see the player.
There were two techniques that provided the offensive player with a very good chance to get a rebound. First of all, players could legally get their upperbody leaning behind the defender's lane position (similar to leaning into the lane). It was very difficult for the calling official to detect whether the offensive player's feet were breakiing the plane in anyway since they had to see THROUGH the defensive player. The second technique allowed a player to all but get a one step running start (while NOT breaking the vertical plane of the lane space) BEHIND the defender in the first position.

If one of these techniques circling behind the defender in the first lane position was effective in one or the first couple FTs during a game, the defender was then much more vulnerable to a traditional quick step toward the lane and then down the lane by the offensive player.

By forcing the offensive player to have at least one foot "near" (is that kind of like the SIX FOOT "closely guarded" rule?) the lane, these techniques were basically made illegal.

I will NEVER agree with the fact that players have to wait until the ball hits before beginning the process of boxing out. I know, I know, I know. The reason this was done is to "clean up rebounding on free throws." The initial change -- the defender in the 4th space was not allowed to break the free throw plane to protect the free throw shooter. I was fine with that. It was getting dangerous for the FT shooter and there were some injuries particularly a number of ACL injuries to girl players. The rest of these changes to me do not make sense. We have players shooting shots from 15 feet from the basket -- many from the center of the lane (i.e. where free throws are taken from) -- ALL GAME LONG. Why is it that we are only concerned about physical play on rebounds of 15 foot shots that are taken from the free throw line that count as one point???

If we are truly concerned about safety, etc. on FTs, perhaps we should clear the lane on ALL FTs. We would then roll a special NFHS dice that would have 100 numbers on it. 73% (I believe that is the number that the NFHS said was acceptable) of the numbers would result in the ball going to the defense while 27% of the numbers would result in a throw-in by the offense under the basket. I don't agree with this at all, but it is just an extension of the current trend.

Look up LANE boundary.

Congratulations Billy, you made the same mistake I did in post #14.