Lane Violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a recent change, IMS.

No it isn't. It has always been that way. There was a recent ruling issued because some didn't understand it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No it isn't. It has always been that way. There was a recent ruling issued because some didn't understand it.

Was 9-1-3d always worded the way it is now?

Just checked:
In 2008-2009, it did not include the phrase "by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space." It may have been their intent, but this is a rule change; for clarification perhaps, but still a rule change.

[Hugh Refner]

I had a game last season in which a HS girl was on the floor trying to grab the ball and when she touched it, her pony tail was OOB. Yep - I called it. When I explained it to her, she just laughed. OK - not a "lane violation" but similar.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was 9-1-3d always worded the way it is now?

Just checked:
In 2008-2009, it did not include the phrase "by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space." It may have been their intent, but this is a rule change; for clarification perhaps, but still a rule change.

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Fair enough.
What Scrapper says below....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fair enough.
What Scrapper says below....

What Scrapper said? Or what the NFHS said? They're completely different.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

I'm going to disagree. This was not a clarification of the rule. It was a change in the rule to make it what had been intended. The rule as previously written was not ambiguous. It was very clear that the violation was caused by the FOOT breaking the plane.

The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm going to disagree. This was not a clarification of the rule. It was a change in the rule to make it what had been intended. The rule as previously written was not ambiguous. It was very clear that the violation was caused by the FOOT breaking the plane.

The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that.

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?