Lane Spots

[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.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

*Well I must say that you are conferring a measure of "fore sight" to our NFHS rule makers, perhaps that was their stratagem--an ultimate concern for the student-athlete's safety but hey I am just a worker bee.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

That reasoning, yes. I'm not sure that was it, though.