Lane Spaces

[Scratch85]

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.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

..."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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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)?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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.

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

[SmokeEater]

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

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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

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

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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

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.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But I'm not king.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

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.

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!