The Official Forum
Page 2 of 6 1 2 34 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100207-2015-16-nfhs-rule-interpretations.html)

JRutledge Fri Oct 16, 2015 01:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968065)
If that's what they want, that would be a major rule/philosophy change, not just some minor editorial update that got overlooked.

You have folks claiming that the NFHS is making it OBVIOUS what it wants. Well, if it so obvious, you would think it would have been something that would have been discussed before the rule book went into to publication. And now we are getting multiple interpretive updates. And these updates are adding absolutes and changing how incidental contact is to ruled.
So many contradictions, but it is "obvious." Funny how people love to never question the NF when they screw up. They screwed up and they are not correcting it in any way.

Peace

bob jenkins Fri Oct 16, 2015 01:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 968064)
I haven't read that "8 page pre-season handout" but I'd wager the NFHS means to create an "automatic foul" for contact with the FT shooter in a similar way to how last year two hands, armbars, and hot stove were changed from possibly incidental to now an automatic foul.

Don't see how "automatic foul in these circumstances (contact with FT shooter, two hands, armbar, etc.)" is inconsistent with the NFHS recognizing incidental contact in other areas.
I took this from the other thread on the subject:

"Players along the free-throw lane lines during free throws are allowed to enter the free-throw lane on the release; however, when the defender crosses the free-throw line and into the semi-circle too soon, this is a violation. A delayed-violation signal is used. If the free throw is successful the violation is ignored.

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling."

And, someone else in that thread had a play from an IABBO "sportorial" referencing incidental contact.

BryanV21 Fri Oct 16, 2015 04:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968040)
Then that would be another unannounced rule change, despite this: "Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule."

I'm sure Bryan will along any minute to defend your honor, so no need to reply. ;)
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...hG5gxg2A0EmmYQ
Leave OKREF alone!

Wait. What are we talking about?

This whole thing is ludicrous. I'm going to read everything here, present it to those "in charge" around here, and ask them what they want. I'm tired of trying to figure out something that somebody else is supposed to figure out for me.

Freddy Fri Oct 16, 2015 05:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 968067)
I took this from the other thread on the subject . . . If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling."
Although the red letters aren't what the NFHS says, I would have preferrred that. But alas...
I'm guessing they really want the FT'er left alone for the "unhindered try" and that ANY contact, incidental or illegal, merits a personal foul, as they outright stated.
Such a concept I don't see contradictory to the principles of incidental vs. illegal contact since this would be similar to the mandatory intentional foul specified when a defender reaches through the OOB and merely contacts the player executing a throw-in. Touching = a foul, cuz they want the behavior curbed. Different kinds of fouls, but fouls nonetheless.
This ain't gonna be any big deal after the teams see it called once or twice. Everyone will comply and we'll forget about the ludicrous way it came out.

Mregor Fri Oct 16, 2015 08:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 968017)
SITUATION 4: An official notices members of Team A are wearing headbands that have extensions. RULING: Illegal. The coach should be informed that the headbands with extensions are illegal and the players will not be allowed to enter the game wearing them. (3-4-5b)
What are headbands that have extensions? :confused:

Freddy Fri Oct 16, 2015 08:30pm
Extensions
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mregor (Post 968077)
What are headbands that have extensions? :confused:
See pictures of these on slide or page 7 in the PowerPoint or PDF lesson at this link: 2015/16 Fashion Police Rules. Skylar Diggins made these popular during her years at ND. Were quite common around here. Sorry, Skylar.

bob jenkins Fri Oct 16, 2015 08:32pm
Google "skylar diggins headband" images.

Raymond Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 968079)
Google "skylar diggins headband" images.
I brought this up last year because I incorrectly had girls remove or tuck them in last year during an AAU tournament. Glad the rest of the world is catching up with me.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

AremRed Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968080)
I brought this up last year because I incorrectly had girls remove or tuck them in last year during an AAU tournament. Glad the rest of the world is catching up with me.
I think I'm gonna let this type of headband slide during summer ball given the amount of crap I got from a coach (and subsequently the owner of the building I ref in) for not allowing his player to wear earrings, even covered in tape.

I'm still gonna stand up for the actual unsafe things like earrings, rings, necklaces, etc., but not gonna pick battles over that type of headband.

bob jenkins Sat Oct 17, 2015 07:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 968080)
I brought this up last year because I incorrectly had girls remove or tuck them in last year during an AAU tournament. Glad the rest of the world is catching up with me.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
I'm not sure you were incorrect, even though the rule was not as clear as it could have been,

I know that in IL we were told not to allow them -- and I assume (yeh, I know) they got the info from nfhs somewhere.

Altor Sat Oct 17, 2015 02:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 968078)
Sorry to go off-subject...

I like the picture of LeBron in that link from his high school days at Akron St Vincent-St Marys.
"Medical Thingies on the upper arms? LEGAL"
Those were there to cover his tattoos and were required by the school.

...back to "Sorry Skylar"

BillyMac Sat Oct 17, 2015 03:17pm
Swoosh, Just Do It ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 968078)
Skylar Diggins made these popular during her years at ND. Were quite common around here. Sorry, Skylar.
Nike is gonna be pissed.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VIYJT2C/...ing=UTF8&psc=1

Rich Sat Oct 17, 2015 06:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 968085)
I'm not sure you were incorrect, even though the rule was not as clear as it could have been,

I know that in IL we were told not to allow them -- and I assume (yeh, I know) they got the info from nfhs somewhere.
They've been illegal in WI for years.

Rich Sat Oct 17, 2015 06:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 968081)
I think I'm gonna let this type of headband slide during summer ball given the amount of crap I got from a coach (and subsequently the owner of the building I ref in) for not allowing his player to wear earrings, even covered in tape.

I'm still gonna stand up for the actual unsafe things like earrings, rings, necklaces, etc., but not gonna pick battles over that type of headband.
Why? Cause you don't like to deal with crap?

OKREF Sat Oct 17, 2015 07:49pm
We were told last year these were illegal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56pm.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 34 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1