Lane Spaces

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're not misreading it. You're misinterpreting it.

Like I said I'm not busy and I'm trying to get my post count up to 8,000 , so here goes my interpretion. Where am I missing the back lane space boundary?

". . . outside edge of any lane boundary" = that bounded by the lane line itself

". . . (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by a lane space mark" = that bounded on the left or right of a player as marked by the 2X8 lane space marking.

". . . (12 inches by 36 inches) designated by a neutral zone." = that bounded on the left or right of a player as marked by the 12X8 neutral zone marking.

I can't find (interpret) what it takes to violate the 4th boundary.

[Vinski]

9-1-3

g. 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.

This statement, along with...

d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space.

...pretty much says it.

[Adam]

Actually, it's the part of article g not highlighted in red that addresses the vertical plane. Article d refers to the body parts other than the feet. They may extend beyond the vertical plane but may not touch the floor outside the defined lane space.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, it's the part of article g not highlighted in red that addresses the vertical plane. Article d refers to the body parts other than the feet. They may extend beyond the vertical plane but may not touch the floor outside the defined lane space.

I believe he was having problems identifying a ruling that specifically talks about a foot hanging over the back boundary. The non-red text of g. talks about the front and sides. The last sentence in g addresses all four sides as far as a foot hanging over.
I just highlighted the part in d to emphasize that nothing can touch the floor. (Probably didn’t need to include this).

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Vinski

9-1-3

g. 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.

This statement, along with...

d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space.

...pretty much says it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, it's the part of article g not highlighted in red that addresses the vertical plane. Article d refers to the body parts other than the feet. They may extend beyond the vertical plane but may not touch the floor outside the defined lane space.

Bear in mind, I am not arguing that it is legal. But if as Snaq says (and I agree) that the part of Vinski's post that is not highlighted is what addresses breaking the vertical plane. Where does it describe the vertical plane at the back of the 36 X 36 lane space?

If the part in red applies to breaking the plane, then that is the only statement we need. Both feet would have to be positioned within the 36-inch lane space, until 9-1-4.

And, the part in red is the only new part to 9-1-3(g). Does that mean that last year you could break the imaginary plane on the back of the lane space

I may get to 8000 on this thread.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

9-1-3

g. 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.

This statement, along with...

d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space.

...pretty much says it.

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Bear in mind, I am not arguing that it is legal. But if as Snaq says (and I agree) that the part of Vinski's post that is not highlighted is what addresses breaking the vertical plane. Where does it describe the vertical plane at the back of the 36 X 36 lane space?

If the part in red applies to breaking the plane, then that is the only statement we need. Both feet would have to be positioned within the 36-inch lane space, until 9-1-4.

And, the part in red is the only new part to 9-1-3(g). Does that mean that last year you could break the imaginary plane on the back of the lane space

I may get to 8000 on this thread.

I highlighted, in red, the relevant portion, that has always prohibited having either foot extended beyond the vertical plane of all four boundaries. Just because the boundary isn't marked doesn't make it any less of a boundary.

The new stuff means the following: A player may not stand with both feet to the rear of the lane space; one foot must be "near" the front.

Also relatively new, the verbiage that prevents a player from touching the floor, outside his space, with any part of his body other than the feet (which were already prevented by the "vertical plane" wording.)

[Scratch85]

Snaq:

So my first interpretation in post#7 is incorrect?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Snaq:

So my first interpretation in post#7 is incorrect?

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.