IAABO Free Throw Restrictions (Continued) ...

[BillyMac]

The plot thickens.

From the March/April 2015 IAABO Sportorials Magazine:

Rules Questions For The IAABO Interpreter

1) A1 is fouled while in the act of trying for a goal. The try is not successful. A1 is awarded two free throws. The first free throw is successful. Upon the release of A1’s second free throw, B3, located in the free throw lane space nearest the free thrower, enters the free throw lane and then, with his/her foot, breaks the far plane of the free throw line prior to the ball contacting the basket ring, or the backboard. The official rules this action by B3 a violation. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes. Reference 9-1-3-D (may enter the free throw lane; the free throw semicircle is not part of the free throw lane; the free throw semicircle if “off limits” to all, excepting the free thrower, until the ball contacts the basket ring, or the backboard.)

So the players on the lane may (only) enter the free throw lane, and can't go anyplace else, like backing away from the lane toward the sideline?

Why did IAABO jump the gun on this when we haven't heard a peep from the NFHS about this?

I hope that this gets straightened out, one way, or the other, next season. I actually like the IAABO rule, I just don't like they way they did it without (seemingly) any input from the NFHS.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The plot thickens.

From the March/April 2015 IAABO Sportorials Magazine:

Rules Questions For The IAABO Interpreter

1) A1 is fouled while in the act of trying for a goal. The try is not successful. A1 is awarded two free throws. The first free throw is successful. Upon the release of A1’s second free throw, B3, located in the free throw lane space nearest the free thrower, enters the free throw lane and then, with his/her foot, breaks the far plane of the free throw line prior to the ball contacting the basket ring, or the backboard. The official rules this action by B3 a violation. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes. Reference 9-1-3-D (may enter the free throw lane; the free throw semicircle is not part of the free throw lane; the free throw semicircle if “off limits” to all, excepting the free thrower, until the ball contacts the basket ring, or the backboard.)So the players on the lane may (only) enter the free throw lane, and can't go anyplace else, like backing away from the lane toward the sideline?

Why did IAABO jump the gun on this when we haven't heard a peep from the NFHS about this?

I hope that this gets straightened out, one way, or the other, next season. I actually like the IAABO rule, I just don't like they way they did it without (seemingly) any input from the NFHS.

That was the same exact response I received from Peter Webb back in December.
Here is Rule 9-1-3d d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space until the ball is released. This rule does not address the situation of breaking the the Free Throw line!
If it is not a problem with NCAA then why is IAABO making it an issue? JUST LET IT GO

[Camron Rust]

I hate when people make stuff up that isn't in the rules....even more so when it is an organization with influence like this.

There is nothing in Rule 9-1-3d that even remotely supports their conclusion. It only establishes restrictions on entering or leaving a marked lane space and when those restrictions end. It makes no mention of additional restrictions that are in place after a player is legally allowed to leave his/her lane space (on the release). Thus, it is legal for them to enter the semi-circle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I hate when people make stuff up that isn't in the rules....even more so when it is an organization with influence like this.

Bingo. I still like the IAABO rule, but, again, bingo.

[Nevadaref]

Both Zoochy and Camron have posted that this IAABO ruling is wrong and has no justification in the current NFHS rules.

Let's get to the crux of this. Peter Webb was obviously asked about the situation, and remembering the old rule from the 1990s, answered without checking the current text. Since the NFHS didn't reinstate the old rule, Peter Webb's answer at the beginning of this season was wrong. He is now embarrassed about that and his ego won't permit him to admit the mistake.

Bank on this: Peter Webb will force a rule change or editorial change for next season to reinstate the old rule making this a FT violation.

Sadly, people such as Mr. Webb cannot accept that things have changed and are no longer the way they were back when he officiated. He needs to retire and step completely away from the HS game. Otherwise what we see is a cranky, old man insisting that he is right.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... no justification in the current NFHS rules ... the old rule from the 1990s ...

Agree on both counts.

This rule (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.

In my thirty-four years, the NFHS has gone from hit, to release, back to hit, and finally (hopefully), back to release. It makes my head spin.

Again, I like the IAABO rule, but as a loyal IAABO member, I am embarrassed as to how IAABO took over the role as an activist "rulemaker" here. In the past, it was bad enough when IAABO would come out with an odd, not NFHS rule based, interpretation, usually through their annual Refresher Exam, but this current situation is not just an odd interpretation, they have gone over the line and now appear to be making up their own rules, not just interpretations (which were bad enough), as they go along.

Did the NFHS overlook that they needed to change 9-9 along with the other free throw restrictions changes, or did they do it on purpose? It really doesn't matter which is the correct answer, IAABO does not have the authority to make up new rules that aren't there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree on both counts.

This rule (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.

In my thirty-four years, the NFHS has gone from hit, to release, back to hit, and finally (hopefully), back to release. It makes my head spin.

Again, I like the IAABO rule, but as a loyal IAABO member, I am embarrassed as to how IAABO took over the role as an activist "rulemaker" here. In the past, it was bad enough when IAABO would come out with an odd, not NFHS rule based, interpretation, usually through their annual Refresher Exam, but this current situation is not just an odd interpretation, they have gone over the line and now appear to be making up their own rules, not just interpretations (which were bad enough) as they go along.

Did the NFHS overlook that they needed to change 9-9 along with the other free throw restrictions changes, or did they do it on purpose? It really doesn't matter which is the correct answer, IAABO does not have the authority to make up new rules that aren't there.

Why are you embarrassed? Non-IAABO officials don' t care, so it's no reflection upon you.

[zm1283]

I got a question on my Part II test this year that dealt with this. It was a true/false and basically said "It is a violation if B3 in the top marked lane space crosses the far edge of the free throw line before the free throw contacts the ring". I answered False and got it correct.