Lane Spots
 

Discussion last night at a meeting about the Lane Spots for FT.

We know that when A1 is shooting FT..B1 and B2 are to be located in the first marked lane spots.

Question: If team A elects not to place players in the lane spots next to B1 and B2, can B3 and B4 take those spots? Can they move down a spot?

Have you seen this done in a game?

I have seen it a couple of times, but most players/teams have no idea they can do this.

Peace

I believe NCAA-W are the only ones with a restriction, NCAA-M and NFHS have no such restrictions.

Was anybody able to find any references in the rule or case book during your discussion?

Case Book 8.1.3 b) covers the situation, noting that "...The offense chooses not to occupy the second marked lane spaces. . . .four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces."

Exactly ;)

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).

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.

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.

Yes: NFHS and NCAA Men's

No: NCAA Women's, FIBA, and NBA/WNBA

MTD, Sr.

Now what I've seen 100% of the time is that those vacant spots are left vacant. I"m not sure if coaches/players know if they can occupy or not--but then again, what useful purpose would it serve to occupy those spaces when you already have two players on the same team and there is no "competition" for the rebound?

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.

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

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.