2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It largely is already.

Plenty of officials would love to do this.

+1. And if I'm the R and my state doesn't require one, I'm not bothering.

IMO, the time to get the players on your side is during dead ball periods; pre-game pontification when the players are focused on everything in the world except what you're saying....is futile.

[Rich]

We have a captain meeting. It takes me about 11 seconds....on a slow day.

[Freddy]

New 2015-17 Officials' Manual specifies now that, at least for those states who follow Fed mechanics and protocol, the only pregame conference is the one conference with both teams' captains and coaches all together in front of the table. I call it the "Kumbaya conference". (cf. definition: ""Kumbaya" has been used to refer to artificially covering up deep-seated disagreements. We "join hands and sing 'Kumbaya'" or "it's all 'Kumbaya'" means we pretend to agree, for the sake of appearances or social expediency." -- Wikipedia)

[Freddy]

The NFHS 2015,16 Interpretation says, about the lane space player who crosses the free throw line prior to the ball striking the ring or backboard, "If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling."

Recent indications are that our state association, as others also, will be requiring said contact to be such that it is more than incidental contact.

Though I truly believe the Fed intended any contact to be ruled a foul, I'm more agreeable to this "it's a foul if it's a foul" requirement.

Official communication will, it was said, be coming out on our state website followed by an email to all officials.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The NFHS 2015,16 Interpretation says, about the lane space player who crosses the free throw line prior to the ball striking the ring or backboard, "If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling."

Recent indications are that our state association, as others also, will be requiring said contact to be such that it is more than incidental contact.
.....

States are going to go against what the NFHS has clearly stated it wants? Blasphemy!!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The NFHS 2015,16 Interpretation says, about the lane space player who crosses the free throw line prior to the ball striking the ring or backboard, "If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling." Recent indications are that our state association, as others also, will be requiring said contact to be such that it is more than incidental contact. Though I truly believe the Fed intended any contact to be ruled a foul, I'm more agreeable to this "it's a foul if it's a foul" requirement. Official communication will, it was said, be coming out on our state website followed by an email to all officials.

So? A defender crosses the free throw line (whatever that means, front of line, back of line, hand, foot, body?), and enters the semicircle (not sure what that means either) a little early (before the ball contacts the basket ring, backboard, or the shot is made, or missed), turns, facing the basket, to box out the shooter, and in doing so, before the free throw ends (during a live ball), his shoulder lightly brushes the extended follow through hand of the shooter, with no effect on the shot (it's already gone, and no airborne shooter here), no displacement, no possibility of injury, no advantage gained, and no disadvantage given.

Freddy, you "truly believe" that the NFHS wants us to rule this a foul?

(Freddy: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just would like to spark further discussion on this issue.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So? A defender crosses the line (whatever that means, front of line, back of line, hand, foot, body?) a little early, turns, facing the basket, to box out the shooter, and in doing so, his shoulder lightly brushes the extended follow through hand of the shooter, with no effect on the shot (it's already gone, and no airborne shooter here), no displacement, no possibility of injury, no advantage gained, and no disadvantage given.

Freddy, you "truly believe" that the NFHS wants us to rule this a foul?

(Freddy: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just would like to spark some discussion on this issue.)

You're not sparking anything, the conversation has already been going on. Weren't we told long ago that the NFHS has made it perfectly clear how they want these plays adjudicated?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You're not sparking anything, the conversation has already been going on. Weren't we told long ago that the NFHS has made it perfectly clear how they want these plays adjudicated?

You're right, I'm not sparking, I'm adding gasoline to the fire.

For the past eighteen months, absolutely nothing about this rule change (release) has been made "perfectly clear".

I'm still not sure what "cross the free-throw line", or "entering the semi-circle" means.

Front plane of free throw line, back plane of free throw line, foot (like players on the marked lane spaces), hand (like defenders during a throwin), body, touch the semicircle (like the restrictions on the free throw shooter who can cross the free throw line with any body part, yet can't touch the floor)?

Regarding fouls in this situation, I know what the NFHS wants us to do (below), but, based on past experience with how the NFHS has handled the change to "release" over the past eighteen months (reactive rather than proactive), I'm just not 100% confident (fool me once, etc.) in calling these incidental contact situations fouls.

2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 1: The opponent makes contact with the free-throw shooter before the free throw reaches the basket. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a violation on the opponent and a personal foul. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

At least the play where the defender crosses the throwin boundary, and makes any contact with the inbounding opponent, is distinguished by it being ruled an intentional foul.

I would love the NFHS to specifically state that any contact in this free throw situation will be ruled a foul regardless of whether, or not, there has been any advantage gained, i.e., no contact will be ruled incidental in this specific situation).

[Freddy]

I think the Fed wants us, in a behavior modification role, to call mere contact, albeit incidental, a personal foul when that defender crosses the FT line prior to the ball striking the ring or the backboard and merely contacts the shooter, so as to inhibit this activity.
I see it not all that much different than when, according to 9-2-10 PENALTY 4, we are compelled to call an intentional foul for mere contact with the thrower, in spite of that contact being merely incidental. They don't want that being done, so the contact doesn't have to rise to the level of a foul. Yet it is penalized as such.
It's just that our state apparently has a different idea, as do other states as I'm hearing from others recently. To wit, incidental contact is just that. Contact that is a foul is just that.
DISCLAIMER: Since I begin this post with the words, "I think...", I reserve the right to be wrong. Someone else might even spark a different opinion in me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

I just took the time to really examine this ruling (above), and it's wrong. This is why I have absolutely no confidence in anything the NFHS does regarding the new "release" rule.

Why rule a delayed violation? What violation has occurred? The situation doesn't state that the free throw line is crossed before the ball hits the ring, backboard, or the free throw ends. The free throw could have been missed after it hit the ring (release, ball hits ring, defender crosses free throw line, contact occurs, free throw misses)

Also, once the free throw hits the ring, do we still protect the free throw shooter by ruling any contact a foul, or do we only rule a foul for illegal contact (non-incidental)? Or, does this "special protection" end with the end of the free throw (miss)?

This is supposed to inspire confidence that the NFHS knows what it's doing? It can't even clarify a new rule with a properly worded interpretation? Now it has to clarify the clarification?

This is how the NFHS make things "perfectly clear"?

Silly NFHS monkeys. No, I need a stronger statement. Stupid NFHS monkeys.

Seriously. What the heck is going on over at the NFHS? Leadership? Money? Overworked?

[OKREF]

The way I understand it is if a player crosses the free throw line prior to the free throw hitting ring or backboard it's a violation. If they cross and make contact prior to ball hitting ring or backboard, it's a violation and a foul. It seems to me they want contact with the free throw shooter to be an automatic foul, much like the 4 automatics are for contact on a ball handler. If they enter the free throw semi circle legally and there is contact, then we must judge on the contact, like we always have.

[grunewar]

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)[/I]

When I go to the online, 2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Book, located at the NFHS Site, 9-1-2 is: Teams shall properly occupy marked lane spaces according to number and space requirements. There is no 2g? There is a 3g though?

Also, the situation says, "The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied."

2.b. says: If the try is not successful, the ball becomes dead when the free throw ends, and a substitute throw shall be attempted by the same free thrower under conditions the same as for the free throw for which it is substituted.

If the conditions are "the same," why is the lane now unoccupied?

Did I miss more changes and corrections or is it just too early in the morning for me to process?
Thanks.

[BryanV21]

The rules interpreter at our association meeting last night told us not to call a foul on incidental contact.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by grunewar

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)[/I]

When I go to the online, 2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Book, located at the NFHS Site, 9-1-2 is: Teams shall properly occupy marked lane spaces according to number and space requirements. There is no 2g? There is a 3g though?

Also, the situation says, "The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied."

2.b. says: If the try is not successful, the ball becomes dead when the free throw ends, and a substitute throw shall be attempted by the same free thrower under conditions the same as for the free throw for which it is substituted.

If the conditions are "the same," why is the lane now unoccupied?

Did I miss more changes and corrections or is it just too early in the morning for me to process?
Thanks.

Because the violation occurred, and the substitute throw is given. You also have a foul for contact with the free thrower. Clear the lanes shoot the substitute, then continue with either a 1-1, 2 shots, or an end line throw in.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The rules interpreter at our association meeting last night told us not to call a foul on incidental contact.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So your state, or at least your association, is going against the expressed wishes of the NFHS?

Didn't some of us get yelled at for suggesting such actions earlier this summer?