2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations

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

[bob jenkins]

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.

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.