The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Lane Violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/67975-lane-violation.html)

jhc2010 Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:16pm

Lane Violation?
 
B1 loses his balance while keeping both feet in his designated lane space. His hand touches the floor in the lane and he stands back up prior to the free throw shot. Violation? Citation??

bob jenkins Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:17pm

Yes.

jhc2010 Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:18pm

Where in the rule/case book?

Raymond Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:21pm

Assuming NFHS.

Look under 9-1-3 in the Rule Book and Situation L for the respective rule in the Case Book.

Adam Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:52pm

This is a recent change, IMS.

BillyMac Sat Apr 23, 2011 09:46pm

Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752861)
This is a recent change.

The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)

26 Year Gap Sat Apr 23, 2011 09:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 752877)
The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)

*throws shoe[phone] at Billy*

Camron Rust Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752861)
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 Sun Apr 24, 2011 09:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 752895)
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 Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:33am

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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752973)
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753178)
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.

<strike>Fair enough.</strike>
What Scrapper says below....

Scrapper1 Mon Apr 25, 2011 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753178)
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 753221)
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 <font color = red>Clarified</font> 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. :D

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753187)
<strike>Fair enough.</strike>
What Scrapper says below....

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1