Unannounced Rule Revision - NFHS 9-1-3a

[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?

[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.

[Kansas Ref]

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.

[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.

[Stat-Man]

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?

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

[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

[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".