[BillyMac]

I just sent this up the ladder through my local IAABO interpreter, my IAABO Connecticut State interpreter, the CIAC, and the four IAABO International interpreters.

This will be my third try with this suggestion.

The last time it made its way all the way up to the table of the NFHS Rules Committee but it was rejected.

Recently, the NFHS Rules Committee seems to be in a “mood” to “downgrade” various penalties to encourage officials to make various calls (not tossing ball to nearest official, flopping, etc.) with penalties that officials have previously unilaterally deemed to be too harsh.

Maybe next year will the year my change will be accepted.

NFHS Proposed Basketball Rule Change

Delete Old Rule: Player Technical Foul 10-4-2: A player must not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Penalty: (Section 4) Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in.

Add New Rule: Out Of Bounds Violation 9-3-4: A player must not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Penalty: (Section 4) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation.

Rationale: Many officials don’t call players for purposely delaying returning in bounds because they believe that the penalty of a technical foul is too harsh. The penalty for illegally "coming in" should be similar to the penalty for illegally "going out" (9-3-3).

The NFHS did something similar many years ago with swinging elbows excessively with no contact. Forty-plus years ago it was a violation to do so, then the NFHS changed it to a technical foul. Many officials, believing this to be too harsh a penalty, didn’t charge the technical foul. In response, the NFHS reversed course and changed this illegal act back to a violation.

Same thing happened in 2005-06 when the NFHS changed leaving court for an unauthorized reason from a technical foul to a violation. The rules committee believed that the former penalty of a technical foul was not being assessed and hoped that changing the penalty to a violation would increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate a tremendous advantage.