The Official Forum - Lane Spaces

Page 3 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Lane Spaces (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55270-lane-spaces.html)

Vinski

Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:06am

Uh, Billy…If I’m not mistaken the…let me see… how did you put it?... lane boundary… is a single line of the lane space that is apart of the lane. :)

fiasco

Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef (Post 634657)

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.

The new FT lane assignments have cleaned up rebounding, as I have observed, and the new "foot near" rule will only further serve to clean it up.

Both excellent rule changes/modifications as I have witnessed them implemented.

Camron Rust

Thu Nov 05, 2009 01:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 634656)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 634666)

Look up LANE boundary.

Well, he quoted the right rule but highlighted the wrong part. I've highlighted, in blue, the part he should have highlighted.:)

bob jenkins

Thu Nov 05, 2009 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 634707)

Well, he quoted the right rule but highlighted the wrong part. I've highlighted, in blue, the part he should have highlighted.:)

Except that you need to continue highlighting the part about the lane-space marks and neutral zones. That defines what "edge" is being talked about.

Adam	Thu Nov 05, 2009 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 634689)

I understand how moving everyone up has helped. I don't understand how the "near" rule has done squat.

1. How many coaches and players are actually aware of it.
2. How many times did you see it broken last year (I know, it wasn't a rule, but the question still stands.) I never saw a single play last year that would have been addressed by this new rule, maybe it's regional.

Scratch85

Thu Nov 05, 2009 02:15pm

I still say the addition to (d) ,36" X 36" and no touch, is fine. But the add on to (g) , "near", is worthless. Even at my age, I like my chances of getting the rebound if I am given position and my opponent has to start in a 36" X 36" box.

I also haven't decided what "position one foot near the outer edge ..." means. Not "what is near" but does it need to be touching the floor or could a player just have it hovering in the air "near" the lane line while facing the back of the box waiting for the ball to hit? Kind of like a base runner in baseball but not touching the bag. And if it means it has to be touching the floor, then we're in trouble because it doesn't end until 9-1-4.

CMHCoachNRef

Thu Nov 05, 2009 02:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 634714)

Shaqs,
It was definitely done in Central Ohio -- that by tons of teams, but by a noteworthy number. I saw a number of situations last year that are no longer permitted. My first scrimmage is tomorrow night. Since the OHSAA decided to drop the Annual State Meeting, it will be interesting to see how well the word got out to coaches and referees. This "near" rule was not even discussed at our local meeting covering rule changes until I brought it up.

I still feel that the "wait til it hits rule" is unnecessary and prejudicial since it treats certain shots from 15 feet different from others. If we were really that concerned about "cleaning up" plays on rebound action, why not make everyone freeze on every shot until the ball hits something? It is up to us referees to "clean up" rebound action. Freezing players in position until a certain event then allowing collisions does not mean much to me.

BillyMac

Thu Nov 05, 2009 07:42pm

Still Confused ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 634666)

Look up LANE boundary.

Good catch. Too bad it doesn't say "marked lane space boundary", but it doesn't.

So, even though none of us are going to call it, theoretically, are we going to allow a player to pass his back foot through the plane of the invisible back of the marked lane space?

BillyMac

Thu Nov 05, 2009 07:48pm

Any ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 634656)

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.

I'm caught up on the word "any". Why doesn't it say "the" lane boundary? Is the NFHS referring to any boundaries along the lane, possibly including the lane line, the marked lines, the neutral zone, and the invisible boundary in the back of the marked lane space? Or, in the sentence that contains the word "any", is the NFHS only referring to the lane line boundary?

Scratch85

Thu Nov 05, 2009 08:50pm

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I wish I'd never brought this up! :rolleyes:

BillyMac

Thu Nov 05, 2009 09:29pm

Next Stop ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch85 (Post 634785)

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...htZoneLogo.png

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45pm.

Page 3 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1