My opinion is that it was a rule changed advertised as a clarification. They clarified their intent by changing the wording of the rule which changed the rule itself. I recognize that others disagree, and I differ from Scrappy only in that I think there was some ambiguity in the rule before. It was, at least, open for interpretation.

Sort of like the clarification of the backcourt exception limiting it to three situations rather than any situation which does not involve active Team Control.

My opinion is that it is exactly what it says it is...and no amount of Randalizing is gonna change that. The rule did NOT change.

The Fed stated that it was a clarification of an existing rule, just the same as case plays are. Clarifications are NOT rules changes.

Now that's just mean.

I'm going to go sulk now.

See attached while you're sulking....:D


http://www.sabo.cc/downloads/2009-10...es_Changes.pdf

Hmmm.

Question:

Are you saying the rule, prior to 2009-10, required the players along the lane to have at least one foot near the lane side of their space? Or was that a change dressed up as a clarification?
:confused:

That's just BS. The rule didn't say what they wanted it to say, so they changed the rule and called it an editorial change. But the rule clearly (no clarification needed) changed.

As I remember things, the editorial change was made because players were stepping backwards out of free throw lane spaces to talk to other players, coaches, etc...so the editorial change was put in there to address that. Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?

That explains the change to 9-1-3g, which was also to address the reverse spin out of the space. The RC wanted players to have to start near the lane.

But it doesn't at all explain 9-1-3d, IMO.

I'd say that is a change that is dressed up as a clarification.

The original rule forbade leaving the space (3'x3'). Separately, a foot breaking the plane of the space was also prohibited. There was nothing in the original rule that indicated, either explicitly or implicitly, that touching outside of the space was legal or not aside from considering it to be a way to leave the space.

Since the restrictions on the feet were clearly covered in other parts of the rule, what else would "leave a marked lane space" have possibly meant that wasn't already covered by the foot restrictions? Aside from touching the floor outside of the space, can you come up with any way to leave it without breaking the plane with your feet and without touching the floor outside of the space?

They merely clarified the rule make it clear that touching outside of the space was considered to be leaving the space.....even though it was all along.


From 03-04...

ART. 6 . . . No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space.
ART. 7 . . . The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket or the free-throw semicircle line.
ART. 8 . . . A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket.
ART. 9 . . . 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.

As for the rule on keeping a foot near the lane line???? I don't know where they pulled that one from but it wasn't from anything in the rule.

The FED explanation for 9-1-3d is that it's a clarification of an existing rule. And no amount of obfuscation is gonna change that. Note.. that's not my opinion; that's exactly what is written in the NFHS link cited above.

It is what it is. If you guys want to argue, take it up with the NFHS rulesmakers. I'm just the messenger. Feel free to write them and tell them it's a rule change and not a clarification. Be sure to let us know how that turns out.

But if it will make you feel any better, Randy agrees with you and Scrappy. And he says to tell you that you're both doing him proud. :D

Sureashell was.

As Camron noted, there's nothing in the original version of that rule that defines what it means to leave the lane space. It could certainly have been inferred, but it wasn't in the rule. Yeah, they clarified their intent by expanding and changing the wording of the rule.

But again, that same link you gave me states 9-1-3g was also a "clarification." IOW, "The FED explanation for 9-1-3g is that it's a clarification of an existing rule."

Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or the NFHS isn't exactly consistent with this term.

I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

By The Book ???
 

You're correct. That's the way all of us would have called it in a real game, in real time. But I do remember some discussion, I believe on this Forum, if the "pushup" in the lane, by the book, was, or wasn't, a violation.

OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/slap.gif