"Clarification" ???

[BillyMac]

This rule (9-9 below) appeared in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit.

9-9: No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line. Note: The restriction applies until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends.

Now the NFHS had decided to, again, go to the release, however, 9-9 is not in the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball rulebook.

Last night was our local IAABO board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting. Our interpreter told us that there was a "clarification" from the "national office" regarding protecting the free throw shooter, and that the 1996-97 Rule 9-9 (above) is "in play" for this year.

At the least, this is "in play" for the entire state of Connecticut (we're 100% IAABO, all local interpreters coordinate their new rules presentations). Does anyone know if this "clarification" also came down from IAABO international (i.e. Peter Webb).

Does anyone know if the NFHS was, in any way, involved with this "clarification"?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This rule (9-9 below) appeared in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit.

9-9: No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line. Note: The restriction applies until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends.

Now the NFHS had decided to, again, go to the release, however, 9-9 is not in the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball rulebook.

Last night was our local IAABO board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting. Our interpreter told us that there was a "clarification" from the "national office" regarding protecting the free throw shooter, and that the 1996-97 Rule 9-9 (above) is "in play" for this year.

At the least, this is "in play" for the entire state of Connecticut (we're 100% IAABO, all local interpreters coordinate their new rules presentations). Does anyone know if this "clarification" also came down from IAABO international (i.e. Peter Webb).

Does anyone know if the NFHS was, in any way, involved with this "clarification"?

Billy:

When in the Sam Hill did you fly to Toledo and climb up into my attic?

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

I have heard of no such clarification and I do not remember any such restriction being discussed. It seems to me that they just took on the college rule and did not try to get cute for once.

This was not a problem this summer when we used the new rule, but I do remember that being a distinction and I have to think about if the rule had that portion of the restriction.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have heard of no such clarification and I do not remember any such restriction being discussed. It seems to me that they just took on the college rule and did not try to get cute for once.

This was not a problem this summer when we used the new rule, but I do remember that being a distinction and I have to think about if the rule had that portion of the restriction.

Peace

Jeff:

Your Leathernecks did a number on my Penguins last Saturday.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

I am working so much college football, I am not paying attention to them as much as I used to. I forget they even have a team, I hardly go back there for any game.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Is Connecticut the only place in the country that has broached this subject?

Has anyone out there in Forum-Land heard of such a clarification?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This rule (9-9 below) appeared in the 1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rulebook, the year before they, again, changed release to hit.

9-9: No opponent occupying a marked lane space shall break the plane of the free throw line. Note: The restriction applies until the ball touches the ring, or backboard, or until the free throw ends.

Now the NFHS had decided to, again, go to the release, however, 9-9 is not in the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball rulebook.

Last night was our local IAABO board's annual interpretation (new rules) meeting. Our interpreter told us that there was a "clarification" from the "national office" regarding protecting the free throw shooter, and that the 1996-97 Rule 9-9 (above) is "in play" for this year.

At the least, this is "in play" for the entire state of Connecticut (we're 100% IAABO, all local interpreters coordinate their new rules presentations). Does anyone know if this "clarification" also came down from IAABO international (i.e. Peter Webb).

Does anyone know if the NFHS was, in any way, involved with this "clarification"?