The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 03:46pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
What Scrapper said? Or what the NFHS said? They're completely different.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 03:52pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 03:57pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 04:00pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Now that's just mean.

I'm going to go sulk now.
See attached while you're sulking....


http://www.sabo.cc/downloads/2009-10...es_Changes.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 04:06pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
See attached while you're sulking....


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

Question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9-1-3g
Clarified that a player occupying a marked lane space must have one foot positioned near
the outer edge of the free-throw lane line with the other foot positioned anywhere within
the designated 36 inch lane space.
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 04:45pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 04:47pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,768
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?
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:03pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:13pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
But it doesn't at all explain 9-1-3d, IMO.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:16pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?
Sureashell was.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:20pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 05:34pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 07:14pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,771
By The Book ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
The play was always called that way anyway.
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

I was in prison and you came to visit me. (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 08:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
Go into your old files and check the 2009-10 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes that were initially posted on the FED website. Under " 2009-10 NFHS MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES" you will find:

9-1-3d Clarified that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space(36 inches by 36 inches).

It was a CLARIFICATION under NFHS rules, as Camron said.

I lent that year's rulebook out, but I'd bet that's how it shows up at the front in the new rules changes too. Of course I don't have a clue what IAABO printed. Maybe they were making up their own rules again.
OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lane Violation coach_x Basketball 2 Sat Jun 17, 2006 02:38am
Lane Violation or Not? djskinn Basketball 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:08pm
lane violation timharris Basketball 4 Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:26pm
3-sec lane violation red Basketball 10 Fri Dec 12, 2003 09:27am
Lane Violation John Choiniere Basketball 7 Mon Feb 07, 2000 11:02am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1