Unannounced Rule Revision - NFHS 9-1-3a
 

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?

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.

Someone here needs to contact Theresia Wyns immediately to 'verify' this; however, it prolly just means that the simple fact of 'A1 attempting the FT' must occur within a 10 sec window. Not necessarily that "failure to contact the rim" and bounce off the backboard still enables Team A an opportunity to control the ball via rebound. At any rate, if read in a verbatim fashion it would give Team A a huge advantage--possibly a 'game changer' type of event. Email the NF asap.

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.

Perhaps to clarify that a free throw is permitted to touch the backboard first before entering the basket or touching the ring?

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

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.

http://createyourownmemes.com/wp-con...e_facepalm.png

NFHS...WHY?

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.

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. :D

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.

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

NevadarRef:

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

MTD, Sr.



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".

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.

Oh. Hell. No.

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.

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 . . .:o

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.

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.

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.

No Compromise ...
 

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.