Unannounced Rule Revision - NFHS 9-1-3a

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Wow!
That would be a HUGE change. It would no longer be a violation for a missed FT to fail to contact the ring. The thrower could fire the ball of the backboard and go after the long rebound.

NevadarRef:

I am inclined to agree with you. Read my response to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

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?

Freddy:

If I were a betting man I would bet that this is a typo. I think it is a typo based upon past rules changes for two reasons:

1) When a rules change has been made (NFHS and NCAA), no matter whether or not there are Editorial Comments regarding the rules change, the rules change is high lighted in the Rules Book. The words that you highlighted in red are not shaded in the Rules Book. That cannot be always said about Casebook Plays; I can reference a NCAA Casebook Play from the 1993-94 season, but that is a story for another time.

2) The change that you found in the 2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Book was not made in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Book. And I would find it difficult to believe that the three Rules Committees would not have had some sort of discussion about this change in the rules, no matter which Rules Committee(s) was thinking of making the change.

My best guess is that someone, who is lacking in knowledge of the rules of basketball, was tasked with proof reading the rules before it went to print and said person thought that those two words were "incorrectly deleted" and decided to "reinsert" them.

MTD, Sr.


P.S: I will email Peter Webb (Immediate Past Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee and current Member of the Committee from Section 1, Dan Ross (Commissioner of the OhioHSAA and Member of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee from NFHS Section 2), and Denny Morris (OhioHSAA State Basketball Rules Interpreter and Director of Basketball Officials) first thing tomorrow morning. Now back to flipping back and forth between the baseball game and the football game.

P.P.S.: I just checked: a) The NHFS website and the 2015-16 Baskektball Rules Interpretations have not yet been published; and b) The 2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Casebook and there are no plays addressing the "rules change".

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My best guess is that someone, who is lacking in knowledge of the rules of basketball, was tasked with proof reading the rules before it went to print and said person thought that those two words were "incorrectly deleted" and decided to "reinsert" them.

Were those words *ever* there?

My guess was it came up in the 10 seconds context with an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about a shot that hit the backboard and went in or hit the backboard before the rim and a "what if" about the 10 seconds expiring in between. So this was a simple, fix the timing on it hitting *something* within 10 seconds, without realizing that the same rule was what mandated that the FT have contact with the rim to be valid. But clearly a guess.

BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark, or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.

[jTheUmp]

BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark

Oh. Hell. No.

or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.

Not on the first or second one... maybe on the 3rd or 4th one after I'd warned both the player AND the HC about it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Were those words *ever* there?

My guess was it came up in the 10 seconds context with an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about a shot that hit the backboard and went in or hit the backboard before the rim and a "what if" about the 10 seconds expiring in between. So this was a simple, fix the timing on it hitting *something* within 10 seconds, without realizing that the same rule was what mandated that the FT have contact with the rim to be valid. But clearly a guess.

BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark, or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.

The FT requirement is to *release* the ball before 10 seconds (and then have it strike the ring / enter the basket). The ball does *not* need to strike the ring before 10 seconds.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The FT requirement is to *release* the ball before 10 seconds (and then have it strike the ring / enter the basket). The ball does *not* need to strike the ring before 10 seconds.

Doh! That would make my whole theory pretty stupid, wouldn't it . . .

T'would seem the confused editor is really the only logical explanation then, as it is inconceivable that they intended to make that change AND didn't think it was worthy of noting as a change.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I just heard back from Peter Webb. The addition of the two words or backboard was a mistake and the NFHS will be sending out a correction.

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

The problem is that 9-1 is the ONLY place in the rules for the requirement that (A) any free throw either be successful or strike the ring. It is mentioned in the Casebook in two places, but not in the rules. Add (B) "or backboard" and the rules have nowhere else that requirement (A) be met.

Solved now that the apparent correction from NFHS came out -- cf. other recent post.

Haven't seen that out on the NFHS website yet.

I hereby volunteer, with two other forum contributors of your choice, to serve on the new OPCBWOPTROC:
"Officials' Proofreading Committee before We Officially Print the Rulebook or Casebook."

Dear NFHS,
I do stuff like this at work and I'm fired. You have how many on your "Rules Committee"? I see the pictures of 13 in the front of my flawed rulebook. Errors like this are quite beneath any professional organization. You can do better than this. I'm here to help. Email me. And BillyMac.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Email me. And BillyMac.

In order for me to participate on this Proofreading Committee, I will require that the NFHS supply me with a dish of M&M's from which all the brown M&M's have been removed.