2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"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. "

Ironic for sure.

This is also a complete rules change, not just and interpretation.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Ironic for sure.

This is also a complete rules change, not just and interpretation.

Peace

Especially where it seems to say that "any contact with the FT shooter is a foul" -- and that goes against the 8-page (or so) pre-season handout that recognized incidental contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Especially where it seems to say that "any contact with the FT shooter is a foul" -- and that goes against the 8-page (or so) pre-season handout that recognized incidental contact.

Well now I have ammo to go to our people (Harry B) and ask them what do they want us to do?

The NF messed this up big time. All they did is double down on a bad interpretation.

Peace

[Freddy]

Unintended consequences and outright errors like those which annually result from the work of those in charge of the rules are enough to get me fired from my job. How about you?

How many of us wouldn't mind serving on a proofreading committee prior to the printing of the new rulesbooks? Heck, some of us would probably do it for free.

It's pretty obvious that the real conservators of the rules of the game are officials like those who contribute to this Forum, not coaches, not administrators of any state association, and evidently not those at NFHS. Put a group of us in charge of vetting the announced and unannounced changes prior to printing and embarrassing errors like these would disappear outright.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF messed this up big time. All they did is double down on a bad interpretation.

Agree. It's as if the rules committee simply "forgot" about this issue, despite the IAABO representation within the committee. Baffling. Especially considering what little else they accomplished this year.

Disagree. I actually like the procedure as developed. The NFHS wants to put the "free" back in free throw (an unhindered try for goal should indeed be unhindered), and this accomplishes that. But why it wasn't written into the rules in the first place is still baffling to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Disagree. I actually like the procedure as developed. The NFHS wants to put the "free" back in free throw (an unhindered try for goal should indeed be unhindered), and this accomplishes that. But why it wasn't written into the rules in the first place is still baffling to me.

It is a bad interpretation because it is not supported by rule. And then they put out other information that contradicts this ruling. I get that they may have wanted to change the rule, but then change the rule before you come up with a bad interpretation. It is not about whether anyone likes the rule, but usually new rules are not made in POEs for us to discover after the fact. They change the rule or at least make a known editorial change. This was neither.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I received this email today from our director of officials. The first part concerns the POE regarding the crossing of the free throw line.



From: Theresia Wynns [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:55 AM
To: Mike Whaley
Subject: RE: Basketball rules questions

Mike,

On the free throw, no one should be in the semi-circle until the free throw is made, missed or ends. This is not written in the rules book which is an oversight. It is a National interpretation. The Points of Emphasis stresses the point that should be made by officials.

Delete “or backboard.”

Theresia D. Wynns
Director of Sports and Officials
National Federation of State High School Associations
PO Box 690 l Indianapolis, IN 46206


NFHS Small Logo color
NFHS

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

But why it wasn't written into the rules in the first place is still baffling to me.

This may be why

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Especially where it seems to say that "any contact with the FT shooter is a foul" -- and that goes against the 8-page (or so) pre-season handout that recognized incidental contact.

It's pretty evident that this --Lane Space Player Fouls Free Thrower-- will be called a personal foul.
But, do they now mean that this --Crosses FT Line, Contact Seems Incidental-- should be a personal foul?

Like when the defender reaches across the line and merely makes contact with the player with the ball on a throw-in, mere contact is an intentional foul. Do they really mean for this "protecting the free thrower" to go so far as to compel us to call a personal foul for what is mere incidental contact with the free throw shooter?

Any of you IAABO folks who got this earlier and have had opportunities for your interpreters to explain it to you, is that what they're saying the NFHS means?

[OKREF]

It seems to me they've made it easy. Cross the line, delayed violation. Make contact, foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It seems to me they've made it easy. Cross the line, delayed violation. Make contact, foul.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Yes, we have to be a bully to see contradictions in the NF's position that everyone that officiates is never going to see. Yep, that is great logic.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Especially where it seems to say that "any contact with the FT shooter is a foul" -- and that goes against the 8-page (or so) pre-season handout that recognized incidental contact.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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 ruled.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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