Yet another "Why I Hate Test Questions" post...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And BBR's 'conjecture' cannot be the reason they changed the rule?

It could be under the present set-up of the game, but remember that this could go back to when the lane was only six feet wide. Under that court situation, a player along the lane did not have to violate in order to GT a FT.

[bowlingref]

How long has it been since the lane was 6 ft. wide? I graduated high 1970 and the was not not 6 ft. wide then. Maybe durign Fred & Barneys playing days the lane was made from Flinstone.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It could be under the present set-up of the game, but remember that this could go back to when the lane was only six feet wide. Under that court situation, a player along the lane did not have to violate in order to GT a FT.

I think it would be pretty difficult, even with a 6 ft. lane, to keep your feet outside the plane of the FT lane boundary and be able to reach the ball in the middle of the lane except for perhaps just as it left the shooters hands.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it would be pretty difficult, even with a 6 ft. lane, to keep your feet outside the plane of the FT lane boundary and be able to reach the ball in the middle of the lane except for perhaps just as it left the shooters hands.

What if Rick Barry was shooting the free throws...