[BillyMac]

4.19.3G (new) Intentional Foul
4.19.3 Situation G: Late in the fourth quarter Team A leads by three points and Team B wishes to foul to stop the clock. B-1 from behind a) places two hands; b) places and keeps one hand; or c) is unable to keep a hand on the back of the dribbler A1 as they move into the frontcourt. RULING: In (a) and (b), even though B1 was unable to reach for the ball, they made a legitimate play on the dribbler and committed a common foul. In (c), This is incidental contact, play should continue, and the clock should continue to run

Rationale: This clarification educates players, coaches, and officials on the proper administration of strategic fouls late in the game. It emphasizes that officials should allow more discretion in ruling common fouls when the defense makes a legitimate attempt to ball/ player. Both sections (a) and (b) are taken directly from rule 10-7-12 and would be considered a handchecking foul. Obviously if a defender uses their hands and arms to excessively contact the ball handler (push and/or grab), it would be an intentional foul. Officials are reminded to consider that the offense benefits from the clock continuing to run. Officials should avoid ruling incidental contact a foul late in the game that would not have been ruled a foul earlier in the game

4.25.1 Held Ball
Must each opponent have two hands on the ball to cause a held ball? RULING: No. A held ball could occur if one or both opponents have one or both hands on the ball. When officials judge that the ball cannot be controlled by a player without causing undue roughness, a held ball should be called. This may (or may not) occur if opponents have one or both of their hands on the ball.
Rationale: This change addresses confusion regarding the interpretation of “hand(s)” in Rule 4-25 concerning held ball situations. This clarification confirms that a held ball may occur whether one or both opponents have one or both hands on the ball. Officials should rule a held ball when the ball cannot be controlled by a player without undue roughness, regardless of the exact number of hands each player uses to contest possession. This ensures consistent and accurate application of the rule.

9.9.1H Frontcourt –Backcourt
9.9.1 SITUATION H: A1 is holding the ball in the frontcourt. A-1 steps a) on, but not over, the division line; or b) into the backcourt. RULING: This is a backcourt violation; the ball will be awarded to Team B in their frontcourt at the 28-foot mark closest to where the violation occurred.

Rationale: This case book play would help clarify that the current NFHS Interpretation of where the throw-in spot will be administered after a backcourt violation occurs when a player steps on the division line. This application of the rule differs from the NCAA Rule. Under NCAA rules, the ball would be awarded at the division line

10.4.2B Delay Returning To Court
10.4.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing a replacement has been made. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells at A5 to return and the player sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play. RULING: Team A is charged with a Team Technical for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time. (Rule 10-2-5)

Rationale: The existing interpretation contains ambiguities that complicate consistent enforcement. Officials cannot reliably determine whether the player returning to the court was legally on the court prior to substitutions or an illegal substitute. This revision replaces these uncertainties by applying a clear and objective standard: the team shall be penalized with a Team Technical for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time.