"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"?

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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.

We were also told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant. And, by Connecticut standards, the shooter would get another free throw if his original free throw missed because of the free throw line "violation" by the defender.

Have any of you IAABO guys heard anything about this, or has IAABO Connecticut decided to secede from the Union?

[JRutledge]

OK Billy, how many schools are you going to play against that is going to be from another state?

I can speak for me, if I get one that is usually about as high as I get to see a team that is out of state. So if that is the position of your state, then so be it.

But as stated, I do not see how this would not be a foul anyway. And considering this is not something you see as a trend at other levels (meaning players are not trying this as a strategy) I do not think you have much to worry about either way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK Billy, how many schools are you going to play against that is going to be from another state?

Fewer than I can count on one hand missing a few fingers (like my high school wood shop teacher).

It's just that I don't like being an outlier.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Fewer than I can count on one hand missing a few fingers (like my high school wood shop teacher).

It's just that I don't like being an outlier.

Well that sounds like a personal problem.

Maybe you need to read the Serenity Prayer?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We were also told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

During a live ball?