Unannounced Rule Revision - NFHS 9-1-3a

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Last Year: "After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower...he/she shall throw within 10 seconds to cause the ball to enter the basket or touch the ring before the free throw ends."

This Year: "After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower...he/she shall throw within 10 seconds to cause the ball to enter the basket or touch the ring or backboard before the free throw ends."

Significance?

I don't think it really matters as long as there is still a violation listed for failing to hit the ring on a free throw attempt.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't think it really matters as long as there is still a violation listed for failing to hit the ring on a free throw attempt.

This is the violation section. It now says ring or backboard. Don't see it anywhere else.....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This is the violation section. It now says ring or backboard. Don't see it anywhere else.....

Well, we know what they really want, right? LMFAO

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, we know what they really want, right? LMFAO

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

It is clear, we cannot protect the nfhs from.....the nfhs.

Good catch Freddy.

[APG]

NFHS...WHY?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Good catch Freddy.

Wasn't my catch...came up on another forum.

Lone reference I could find regarding any need for "hitting the rim" still remains:
6.4.3 SITUATION A: B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane prematurely. The administering official properly signals the violation and A1 attempts the free throw. However, A1's attempt does not enter the basket or touch the ring.
RULING: The violations by B1 and A1 constitute a simultaneous free-throw violation...

So what's the oversight? Keeping 6.4.3A, or inserting "or backboard" in 9-1-3a?

Seems to me they put that in so as to make it compatible with the "or backboard" that appears below in 9-1-3e and f. Problem is, in e and f those words make sense, given the free throw can theoretically strike the backboard and then the rim after. This is akin to Statman's response above.

Unintended consequences always seem to follow unannounced rules changes. Grrrrrrrrr.

[so cal lurker]

Who knows, maybe they just wanted to make end game comebacks more exciting by letting the shooter slam it off the board instead of the rim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, we know what they really want, right? LMFAO

I really got a laugh out of this.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I really got a laugh out of this.

Peace

What's really bad is that in the online version, if you read the POE's and go to the link provided in that discussion, it links to last year's verbiage. If you go the rule itself, it has this year's verbiage.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What's really bad is that in the online version, if you read the POE's and go to the link provided in that discussion, it links to last year's verbiage. If you go the rule itself, it has this year's verbiage.

And we are just supposed to follow the POE no matter what? Interesting.

For the record, my state does not have access to any of the online version unless you decide on your own to pay for the access which to my understanding is in the $40 range. Most officials never pay for that access, because it is not worth it for what you get.

Peace