[Nevadaref]

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
3-4-15 Prohibits a team member from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul.
7-5-5 Changed the penalty to a throw-in for a team-control foul in all cases. A new definition for a team-control foul was also added.
7-5-9 Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for "point of interruption" was also added.
9-3-2 New Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

2005-06 Major Editorial Changes
4-19-3 Clarified the definition of an intentional foul.
5-2-1 Clarified when a three-point goal shall be scored.
10-4-4 New A new article was added to 10-4 clarifying when bench personnel may stand. Section 10-5 was reorganized to clarify the head coaches' rule.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS
JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1h): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn't require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.
THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7): A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control. By rule, there is no team
control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.
PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36): The penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls has been changed from an alternating-possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition of "point of interruption" has also been added to the rules book. If the point of interruption cannot be determined e.g., unsuccessful try in flight, the alternating-possession arrow will be used. The committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul. Under the previous rule, if the alternating-possession arrow favored the defense, the defense would be awarded the ball, benefiting from the foul act. It is hoped that the change will increase the likelihood of double fouls being called when warranted.
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.