Free throw vioation questions

[davecasper]

thank you fellas for clarifying this rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

Do you remember what year the change was made. I am getting senile (according to my sons, LOL). And I still of the oppinion that it is a stupid editorial change. Just call the lane violation if the player violates leaving his lane space before he is allowed to leave. I have. No matter where the player stands he still can leave early and go behind an opponent. Just call the violation (not you, I know you would).

MTD, Sr.

Yes, they can call it an "editorial" change, but it was a change in the function of the rule. Nothing before the change even could be read to imply that there was any such requirement. It wasn't a "clarification" as they stated, but a new imposition on the players....that is a rule change, not an editorial change.

I HATE editorial changes that change the function of the rule with no basis for the new version from the prior version aside from it being on the same page. All that tells me is that someone had been calling it that way and decided to change the rule to match the way they were calling it and, to avoid being wrong all those years, they call it an editorial change.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BNF:



Just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? There is not such rule in the NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's Rules as to how a player in one of the marked lane spaces can position their feet except that they have to be within the confines of the lane space and that NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules for over fifty (50) years and that goes back to the NBCUSC days. The FIBA Rules have been the same also because the NAGWS (women's college in 'The Ancient Day') Rules which were base upon FIBA Rules.

MTD, Sr.

Are you part of the players' suit against the NFL?

Rules changes Posted

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I did not have to climb up into the attic to compare the 2008-09 Rules Book to the 2009-10 Rules Book, nor to read the NFHS (read: Mary Struckhoff, which means do NOT get me started, ) press release of May 11, 2009.

I would also like to thank APG, in his most recent post (Post #15) in this thread for providing a link to the May 2009 thread about the to NFHS R9-S1-A3g. If one reads the thread, I did address this nonsense back then in a post (Post #17), on May 07, 2009. I am getting forgetful, .

Comparing the rule from 2008-09 to 2009-10 the only change to NFHS R9-S1-A3g is in red:

2008-09: "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."

2009-10: "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. A player shall position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space."

The red sentences were not highlighted in gray in the 2009-10 Rules Book.

Mary Struchoff stated that the reason for the change was that "players attempting to leave their positions too early to gain a rebound advantage". If players are leaving early then the officials should be putting air in their whistles and enforce the violations. Do not add a stupid rule.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Seems to me the player did not violate even the new rule, as he had one foot "near" the lane line.

[davecasper]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Seems to me the player did not violate even the new rule, as he had one foot "near" the lane line.

One foot was very near the lane line, but his back foot may have been more than 3' away from the lane line.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by davecasper

One foot was very near the lane line, but his back foot may have been more than 3' away from the lane line.

Ah, that makes sense.