Lane Spaces
 

Am I reading 9-1-3(g) correctly?

A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane marked by the lane line or either neutral zone line (2 X 36 or 12 X 36) but can break the vertical plane (with either foot) that would make up the back of their 36 X 36 lane space.

..."The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36" lane space."

As I read it they want one foot positioned "near" the free throw lane line and the other maybe positioned anywhere, but within the 36" x 36" designated lane space.

The word "near" is subjective.

My curiosity is about breaking the vertical plane (with either foot) on the back side of the 36 X 36 lane space prior to the ball touching the ring, backboard or the FT ending.

Asked and answered. It's not allowed.

Since I'm not busy, let me ask another question.

I believe you and understand that it is not allowed. It just makes sense. But, am I misreading 9-1-3(g) or is this something that has been decided outside of the ruling in 9-1-3(g)?

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. :confused:

Thats correct, they can not break the vertical plane. I had to do a double take on that as well.

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.

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).

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. :D

Maybe you should ask yourself first why would anyone want to break the vertical plane at the back of the lane space.

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.)

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Still Confused ???
 

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?

Any ???
 

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?

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

Next Stop ???
 

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