Lane Spots

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

One interesting note from our rules meeting last night regarding free throw spaces that I did not know; while the lane space extends back 36 inches, the player occupying that space must have at least one foot in the proximity of the lane line (inside the lane space markers).

Originally Posted by Rob1968

That restriction appears in 9-1-3 g) " 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."
"...near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line." is usually interpreted as "within 12 inches".

Yes...that is a rule change they made a couple years ago that. Not sure why they made it, however. I don't see an problem it solves.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes...that is a rule change they may a couple yeara sgo that. Not sure why they made it, however. I don't see an problem it solves.

I agree.

The statement first appeared in the 2009-10 Rules Book, as a "Major Editorial Change", and was characterized as a "clarification." No further explanation was noted in the POE's or Comments.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes...that is a rule change they made a couple years ago that. Not sure why they made it, however. I don't see an problem it solves.

Our state association director of officials stated that it was so a rebounder couldn't stand back 36 inches from the lane and get a running start at the rebound.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Our state association director of officials stated that it was so a rebounder couldn't stand back 36 inches from the lane and get a running start at the rebound.

That is just his opinion but no such reasoning was ever voiced by NFHS authorities when the editorial change was implemented.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by justacoach

That is just his opinion but no such reasoning was ever voiced by NFHS authorities when the editorial change was implemented.

There are a lot of reasoning for things that do not get voiced publicly. It might be an educated opinion or one that has talked to someone that makes the final decisions or was in the meeting.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Our state association director of officials stated that it was so a rebounder couldn't stand back 36 inches from the lane and get a running start at the rebound.

Why would that be a problem?

And remember, it was called an editorial clarification, not a rule change.

It may have been that someone had been imposing that restriction upon players in their games for years and got the change pushed through as an editorial to make themselves correct retroactively.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why would that be a problem?

There is enough contact on a missed FT as it is, giving one player a 3 foot head start to come crashing in would only result in more, I'm guessing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

There is enough contact on a missed FT as it is, giving one player a 3 foot head start to come crashing in would only result in more, I'm guessing.

And calling the foul would put a quick stop to it.

No need to guess.

[JetMetFan]

From May 2009:

New language in Rule 9-1-3d states that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space (3 feet by 3 feet). A clarification to Rule 9-1-3g indicates that a player occupying a marked lane space must have one foot positioned near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line with the other positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space.

(Mary) Struckhoff said these changes were necessitated by players attempting to leave their positions too early to gain a rebound advantage.

[OKREF]

Doesn't being able to move on the release make this reasoning obsolete now?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Our state association director of officials stated that it was so a rebounder couldn't stand back 36 inches from the lane and get a running start at the rebound.

This is the same reasoning we got from our state association a couple years ago, who supposedly got it unofficially, verbally from the Fed. Who knows where it originated from...probably a Fed board member saw it at a game once and thought "there outta be a rule..."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

This is the same reasoning we got from our state association a couple years ago, who supposedly got it unofficially, verbally from the Fed. Who knows where it originated from...probably a Fed board member saw it at a game once and thought "there outta be a rule..."

I was under the impression it was meant to stop the play where A2 steps back and drops behind B1 unseen: but I never really heard officially.

I've never actually seen a player stand back far enough to warrant making this call.