The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 08:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 22
Arrow 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??
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 08:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,071
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 08:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 22
Arrow

Where in the rule/case book?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 08:21pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,366
Assuming NFHS.

Look under 9-1-3 in the Rule Book and Situation L for the respective rule in the Case Book.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 08:52pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
This is a recent change, IMS.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 09:46pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,769
Oldest Trick In The Book ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
This is a recent change.
The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)
__________________
"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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 09:58pm
Aleve Titles to Others
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Westchester of the Southern Conference
Posts: 5,386
Send a message via AIM to 26 Year Gap
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)
*throws shoe[phone] at Billy*
__________________
Never hit a piñata if you see hornets flying out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 23, 2011, 10:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 24, 2011, 09:52am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 09:57am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 24, 2011, 11:33am
Official Fiveum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eurasia - no, Myasia
Posts: 302
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 11:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 12:00pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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....
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 02:35pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 01:58pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 03:40pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2011, 03:42pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Fair enough.
What Scrapper says below....
What Scrapper said? Or what the NFHS said? They're completely different.
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 08:54am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1