"Clarification" ???

[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"?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Nope, not here. Of course, by virtue of the protective anonymity afforded here, and the pseudonym used as a login name, you have no clue where I live and officiate.

[JRutledge]

If they did not put it in the rule, it is not apart of the rule. If your state Billy wants to have an additional restriction, that is their right. But you should not look towards old rules or interpretations when the rule was entirely changed anyway. And other levels do not seem to have this distinction either.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If your state Billy wants to have an additional restriction, that is their right.

Which is what concerns me.

It doesn't bother me when a state "tinkers" with a minor rule, or mechanic, like Connecticut stating that headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves, have to be the same color, or when Texas dictates that the referee sound his whistle before entering the vicinity of the court (to discourage dunking). These fall under the "When in Rome..." flexibility guidelines oft used in the officiating world.

But this is adding an entire section to a rule that nobody else in the country seems to be doing. I don't know why, but it just makes me uncomfortable being a maverick. If the NFHS wanted free throw line restrictions in the new rule, then they would have placed them in the rule, as God , and Dr. Naismith, intended.

[Rich1]

I do not see anything in the rules specifically profibiting a defender from breaking the plane of the free throw line after the release in order to block out (only restrictions on the shooter).

I don't think a rule is really needed because if the shooter holds his position then the defender won't be able to go far without displacing the shooter which I'll call a foul. Since most shooters set up within inches of the line I don't see how a defender could break the plane by much without displacing the shooter.

It will be a situational thing for me based on displacement or advantage/disadvantage and I'm sure anyone who gets called for such a foul will not be breaking the plane in the future.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by 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?

The NFHS included a statement in the casebook 9.1 Comment ... "Once a free throw starts, no player occupying a marked lane space may enter or leave such space or break with either foot the vertical plane of any lane or lane-space boundary until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends..."

The corrections NFHS posted to their website last week stated...
"Page 70, 9.1 COMMENT: Sentence 2 should read: Once a free throw begins no player may enter or leave a marked lane space or break with either foot the vertical plane of a free throw lane line or lane space boundary prior to the release of the ball by the free thrower. Delete last sentence.

So, NFHS has stated it, maybe not as obvious as they could have.

[Adam]

They will probably give us an unannounced editorial change next year.

That's what I would say if I wasn't still waiting on them to fix another glaring hole in the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

So, NFHS has stated it, maybe not as obvious as they could have.

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Delete last sentence.

And replace with what?

I don't know how to react? Boom goes the dynamite? The plot thickens?

Should I be more confused, or less confused?

Are Connecticut IAABO, IAABO International, and the NFHS, all on the same page?

I'm confused.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

The NFHS included a statement in the casebook 9.1 Comment ... "Once a free throw starts, no player occupying a marked lane space may enter or leave such space or break with either foot the vertical plane of any lane or lane-space boundary until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends..."

The corrections NFHS posted to their website last week stated...
"Page 70, 9.1 COMMENT: Sentence 2 should read: Once a free throw begins no player may enter or leave a marked lane space or break with either foot the vertical plane of a free throw lane line or lane space boundary prior to the release of the ball by the free thrower. Delete last sentence.

So, NFHS has stated it, maybe not as obvious as they could have.

Billy's clarification is dealing with the Free Throw Line. This clarification makes the comment consistent with the change back to "on release." I don't see it addressing breaking the plane of the free throw line Billy is talking about.

I haven't heard anything in Illinois/nfhs on the free throw line. I agree with Rich1 on calling a foul if it is one etc.

Billy, hopefully your state will deal with the ignoring contact unless intentional etc. maybe they just thought violation usually equals dead ball and ignore all other contact. If there's common foul blocking out the free throw shooter it be nice if you could call it.

01-34066