Unannounced Rule Revision - NFHS 9-1-3a

[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.