Free throw vioation questions

[APG]

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.

Rule 9, Section 1

Art. 3...After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower:

g. 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Rule 9, Section 1

Art. 3...After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower:

g. 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.

APG:

To paraphrase President Clinton: Define "near"?

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I don't feel like climbing up into the attic to research this change but to be honest, this has to have been an unannounced grammatical change that I missed because the NCAA Men's/Women's Rules have no such wording. And if it is and unannounced grammatical change, it is one of the most stupid changes that the NFHS Rules Committee has made.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

APG:

To paraphrase President Clinton: Define "near"?

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I don't feel like climbing up into the attic to research this change but to be honest, this has to have been an unannounced grammatical change that I missed because the NCAA Men's/Women's Rules have no such wording. And if it is and unannounced grammatical change, it is one of the most stupid changes that the NFHS Rules Committee has made.

Whatever you feel like "near" is to you. No one I know enforces it.

I believe it was an editorial change from a couple of years back.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Whatever you feel like "near" is to you. No one I know enforces it.

I believe it was an editorial change from a couple of years back.

No, it was actually a deliberate rules change....maybe they called it an editorial but the commentary that went with it basically said that while the space is 3' deep, it was not the intent of the rules to allow a player to stand at the back of the space and duck behind another player. Not sure why. But they clearly said they want a foot nearer the lane line than the outer edge of the box. Never called it, however.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it was actually a deliberate rules change....maybe they called it an editorial but the commentary that went with it basically said that while the space is 3' deep, it was not the intent of the rules to allow a player to stand at the back of the space and duck behind another player. Not sure why. But they clearly said they want a foot nearer the lane line than the outer edge of the box. Never called it, however.

Camron:

Do you remember what year the change was made. I am getting senile (according to my sons, LOL). And I still of the opinion 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.

[Raymond]

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.

I want to say it was 2-3 years ago. We had a very short debate about it here b/c, as you already stated, we all wanted to know what "near" meant.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I want to say it was 2-3 years ago. We had a very short debate about it here b/c, as you already stated, we all wanted to know what "near" meant.

From 2009

Rules changes Posted

[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.

[davecasper]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Rule 9, Section 1

Art. 3...After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower:

g. 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.

Obviously I'm not an official and I'm not accustomed to reading rules like this, but I am not understanding this rule at all. "The verticle plane of the outside edge of any lane boundry"? Where would I find this verticle plane?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by davecasper

Obviously I'm not an official and I'm not accustomed to reading rules like this, but I am not understanding this rule at all. "The verticle plane of the outside edge of any lane boundry"? Where would I find this verticle plane?

Perpendicular to the playing surface.

MTD, Sr.

[tref]

Originally Posted by davecasper

Obviously I'm not an official and I'm not accustomed to reading rules like this, but I am not understanding this rule at all. "The verticle plane of the outside edge of any lane boundry"? Where would I find this verticle plane?

Where the outside edge & inside edge of any lane boundary meet.

The rationale for this is an attempt to remove rough play on FT rebounding.

[davecasper]

So as long as his back foot is within 3 feet from the lane he is ok then?