Lane Spots

[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?

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

*I'm thinking the same thing

[BryanV21]

I guess they're trying to avoid players gaining momentum, and thus turning a simple foul into something that could cause injury.