2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations

Originally Posted by Rich

Why? Cause you don't like to deal with crap?

Essentially yes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why? Cause you don't like to deal with crap?

Originally Posted by AremRed

Essentially yes.

I also hate dealing with "Fashion Police" crap, but I deal with it, because the NFHS wants me to deal with it, my state interscholastic high school sports governing body wants me to deal with it, and my state, and local, IAABO boards want me to deal with it.

I just wish that all of my local board colleagues would deal with it. It would make my job a lot easier.

Tuesday night's official (to himself): "This fashion stuff ain't part of "the game"".

Friday night's coach to BillyMac: "But Tuesday night's officials let us wear these".

[BigCat]

I guess while we are talking about free throw situations I might as well point out that they have removed language in the penalty section of 9-1. Penalty 4b used to say if the second violation is by the free thrower or a "teammate behind the free throw line extended and the three point line" both violations are penalized....

It now simply says if the violation is by the free thrower or a "teammate" both violations are penalized. It contradicts 4a which we know says the second violation is ignored if it occurs in marked lane space....

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I guess while we are talking about free throw situations I might as well point out that they have removed language in the penalty section of 9-1. Penalty 4b used to say if the second violation is by the free thrower or a "teammate behind the free throw line extended and the three point line" both violations are penalized....

It now simply says if the violation is by the free thrower or a "teammate" both violations are penalized. It contradicts 4a which we know says the second violation is ignored if it occurs in marked lane space....

You are correct that this was an error in the rulebook. Seems it was rectified, however, with this later interpretations release by NFHS:

Rule Book Corrections: Page 56, 2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules omission: 9-1-3 Penalty 4b should read “If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).

[crosscountry55]

So I had a set of HS boys pre-season games today in a two-person crew. I discovered that it's a pain in the arse, as the T, to look at both the players in the lane spaces opposite, the shooter, the players behind the arc, and the flight of the ball.....granted all stuff I've done before.....but then have to add yet another item to look for, i.e. the defender in the high post crossing the plane before the FT ends. That's a lot to take in in a 2-p crew. Might be a long year.

A lot easier to handle in a 3-p crew. Hopefully those games make up the majority of my sked this year.

[Stat-Man]

I'm trying to figure out if the new POE applies only if the defender enters the lane early and contacts the free throw shooter.

If the defender waits until the ball hits the rim, and then incidentally contacts the shooter, is that still legal? Or, should it be called a foul as well?

I have a feeling the first time I enforce the POE, I'll be having a thrilling conversation with the coach.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I discovered that it's a pain in the arse, as the T, to look at both the players in the lane spaces opposite, the shooter, the players behind the arc, and the flight of the ball.....granted all stuff I've done before.....but then have to add yet another item to look for, i.e. the defender in the high post crossing the plane before the FT ends.

Tell me about it. I had a MS-G game last week and had to look out for a potential foul against the free throw shooter. I was so concerned about that, I didn't see whether the ball hit/missed the rim.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I'm trying to figure out if the new POE applies only if the defender enters the lane early and contacts the free throw shooter.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

If the defender waits until the ball hits the rim, and then incidentally contacts the shooter, is that still legal? Or, should it be called a foul as well?

Legal. No foul for incidental contact because lane space player crossed the FT line after the ball hit the ring.

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I have a feeling the first time I enforce the POE, I'll be having a thrilling conversation with the coach.

Of all the FT's of the 24 or so games from last year I studied (mostly varsity, a couple of JV), this was quite rare -- never with boys, always with girls. And the precursor to every actual violation and foul due to contact prior to the ball striking the ring was a vivid, noticable, aggressive entry into the lane by that top lane space player. Here's an example: Crossing the Line and Contact Prior to Rim Hit
When a normal entry into the lane occurred, whatever adjudication needing to be done on this issue was usually so close it didn't seem legitimate to call.
Look for that aggressive entry. If it doesn't happen, at this point of studying this issue I'd say the POE isn't happening so you don't have to fixate on it.
Of course, as always, I reserve the right to be wrong on this. But that's the way it looks.[/QUOTE]

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I'm trying to figure out if the new POE applies only if the defender enters the lane early and contacts the free throw shooter.

If the defender waits until the ball hits the rim, and then incidentally contacts the shooter, is that still legal? Or, should it be called a foul as well?

I have a feeling the first time I enforce the POE, I'll be having a thrilling conversation with the coach.



Tell me about it. I had a MS-G game last week and had to look out for a potential foul against the free throw shooter. I was so concerned about that, I didn't see whether the ball hit/missed the rim.

This was a rule for 4 years in the 90s. I can't remember all the complaining and general clutching of pearls about it then.

Life got so much easier when I decided to just go out and work games and not overly concern myself with what the NFHS did or didn't do.

[OKREF]

Pre game meeting--Coach's do you understand the new rule emphasis? No, okay, stay out of the free throw semi circle until the ball hits the ring, its a violation and foul for contact. Any questions?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Pre game meeting--Coach's do you understand the new rule emphasis? No, okay, stay out of the free throw semi circle until the ball hits the ring, its a violation and foul for contact. Any questions?

Why go there at all? I kinda think if it happens, call it and if it doesn't don't. Why invite discussion about this?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Why go there at all? I kinda think if it happens, call it and if it doesn't don't. Why invite discussion about this?

I understand both viewpoints. Some officials hold coaches responsible for knowing the rules... As coaches should, other officials like to avoid any possible issue.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Why go there at all? I kinda think if it happens, call it and if it doesn't don't. Why invite discussion about this?

Now, if I have to call it, there isn't any discussion about it during the game, it also is preventative officiating, if I handle it pre game, when a coach may not know the rule, I can avoid any conflict during the game. It was covered during pre game.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yes.


Legal. No foul for incidental contact because lane space player crossed the FT line after the ball hit the ring.

Thanks, Freddy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Pre game meeting--Coach's do you understand the new rule emphasis? No, okay, stay out of the free throw semi circle until the ball hits the ring, its a violation and foul for contact. Any questions?

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Why go there at all? I kinda think if it happens, call it and if it doesn't don't. Why invite discussion about this?

My pregame meeting: Players properly equipped, Players wearing uniforms properly, Practice good sportsmanship. Period.

Our local interpreter goes over the new rules, and points of emphasis, with coaches at a preseason meeting.

I often show up early at scrimmages to see if coaches have any questions about the new rules.

Once the "real" season starts, I will answer polite questions, but I won't take any initiative to invite coaches to participate in a rules clinic.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Now, if I have to call it, there isn't any discussion about it during the game, it also is preventative officiating, if I handle it pre game, when a coach may not know the rule, I can avoid any conflict during the game. It was covered during pre game.

And what else to you cover in your pre-game rules clinic for the coaches?

OK, that was overly snarky, but IMO this is a bit of pandora's box -- I don't see this rule as so significant that it warrants singling out more than any other relatively unusual situation.