2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations
 

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2015-16
By NFHS on October 14, 2015

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. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2015

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).
Rule 9-1-3a: delete “or backboard”

Case Book Corrections:
Page 22, Situation 3.5.3 B: Substitute A6 reports to enter the game to replace A1. A5, presently in the game, is wearing beige compression sleeves on his/her arm and leg. A6 is wearing a black headband and wristbands. Ruling: A6 and A5 are is not allowed to enter the game because the rules require all team players to wear the same allowable color sleeves, headbands and wristbands. No penalty is involved. A6 and A5 simply cannot participate until the color restrictions are corrected. (3.5.3)

Clarification Preseason Guide Article “Enforce Illegal Contact on Free Thrower and Violations During Free Throw”, page 6, second paragraph: The free thrower must remain within the free throw semi-circle until the ball contacts the basket ring or the shot is made or missed. The same rule applies to all other players who do not occupy free throw lane line marked spaces. Players who occupy free throw lane line marked spaces during free throws may enter the free-throw lane upon the free thrower releasing the ball; however, should a defensive player cross the free-throw line too soon, it is a violation. A delayed violation signal is to be displayed. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored. If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling. If the free throw is unsuccessful, the violation is enforced and a substitute free throw is awarded. If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling. Whether the free throw is or is not successful, the penalty for the personal foul is awarded. If the free thrower’s team is in a bonus situation, the free thrower would be awarded a one-and-one or two free throws. If the free thrower’s team is not in a bonus situation, his or her team would be awarded a throw-in along the end line.

Comment: Rule 9-1 does not address the issue of players, other than the free thrower during the free throw, entering the semi-circle. The national interpretation on this issue is during the free throw, anyone entering the semi-circle has created a violation. If it is a team member who violates, the ball should be blown dead immediately. If an opponent violates, it is a delayed lane violation and the free thrower should be awarded a substitute throw if the free throw is missed.

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)

SITUATION 3: During a free throw by A1, B1 pushes A2 and B2 is in the lane before the ball is released. RULING: Delayed violation and penalize the foul. If Team A is in the bonus, shoot one-and-one. If Team A is not in the bonus, A gets the ball for a throw-in along the endline. If the free throw is not successful, award a substitute free throw and also penalize the foul as a personal foul (live ball). The substitute free throw would be administered with the free throw lane spaces not occupied. (9-1-2 Penalty 2b)

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)

SITUATION 5: During warm-ups, A1 is wearing black tights, A2 is wearing a white headband and matching white wristbands. Both meet the definition of the rule as it relates to color. RULING: The officials should work with the coach, prior to the game, when they see several colors being worn by team members. Officials should be proactive in this situation. The coach needs to take responsibility to make sure team members are dressed properly. (3-5-3,4)

"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

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

We Could Do Better than That
 

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.

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.

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

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?

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

This may be why

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

What are headbands that have extensions? :confused:

Extensions
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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"

Swoosh, Just Do It ...
 

Nike is gonna be pissed.

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

They've been illegal in WI for years.

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

We were told last year these were illegal.

Essentially yes. :D

Deal With It ...
 

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".

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....

Does This Solve That?
 

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).

Tried Out the New FT Interp
 

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. :D

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. :rolleyes:

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.

Yes.

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

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]

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.

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?

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

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.

Thanks, Freddy.

BillyMac's Pregame: Short And Sweet ...
 

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.

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

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.

If it isn't significant why has there been such a debate over it? This is a fairly big change. I'm not in the habit of having a rules meeting when meeting with coaches, but covering this, especially at the beginning of the season will help when it has to be called in a game.

What? Thomas Henry Huxley Quoted On The Basketball Forum ???
 

This is not a "big change". There's been a lot of debate because the NFHS, with a little help from IAABO, "made the easy look difficult". IAABO broached this issue last season by stepping out of it's role of educating officials and, instead, made up interpretations that didn't match the rules that existed at the time. This year, the NFHS made it worse by publishing a point of emphasis without backing it with a rule, or a penalty.

“If you left a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for a hundred years eventually you’d manage to get a Shakespearean sonnet.” (Thomas Henry Huxley)

.. and give them another 100 years and they could do a better job of writing basketball rules than the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee.

If we've had all these questions about it, don't you think there's a chance coaches might be a little confused?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

While I understant this POV, I've found it a slippery slope. If you discuss it with Captains/Coaches, then you MUST call it during the game - every time. Because if not, then you get the - "Get him off him." "Hey, that's a hand check! You said you would call that!"

I prefer the short, coaches meeting - sportsmanship, properly equipped, good luck.

I have never said in a coaches meeting I'm going to call this or that. I understand where your coming from. As for this new interp, I'm pretty sure when it happens and I call it, I'm almost certain all it will take is one time.

Absolutely. Given that the game is supposed to be "an extension of the classroom", then it is incumbent upon us to at minimum mention 'hand-checking' & 'encroachment into the FT circle/contact with FT shooter" rule/call--if for no other reason than to help ingrain the habits of proper play.

I'm totally with you. With so much that can, and will, happen during a game that leads to objections from coaches, why not take a few seconds to cover something new or different?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think the coaches ought to take an hour or two to review the rulebook themselves AND WITH THEIR PLAYERS and notify them of the changes.

As a courtesy, our association sends out a letter to our schools briefly outlining the rule changes and POEs for the upcoming season, and we also discuss them at preseason scrimmages and clinics.

But once the season has begun, I don't think it's necessary for us to be reminding coaches about changes and POEs.

I will never mention hand checking in a coaches meeting.

There's a difference between what coaches SHOULD do, and what they WILL do.

I don't count on anybody doing or knowing what they should. Call me a cynic.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

They'll still object.

Esteemed Forum Referees:
Please do not construe what I'm saying as "authoritative" because I am just a simple basketball ref whom--by continual rules study, feedback from superiors, and praxis--simply aims to perform better each time I do a game. But given the huge variance in opinion here on what "ought be" covered in a pre-game regarding the POE/rules clarifications---then it would seem to a casual bystander that we refs differ on what ought be and not ought be covered in a pre-game.

If we simply dismiss these POE issues (and assume coaches and players know them like we do), then the pre-game will descend into nothing more than a perfunctory blaise ritual [viz: waste of time]. One could then plausibly argue that we ought to just dismiss the pregame altogether and immediately start with the jump ball, no?

It largely is already.

Plenty of officials would love to do this.

For the most part, it is a waste of time. My pregame is simple: "Respect Your Opponent. Respect Yourself. Respect the Game of Basketball." Anything more than that is unnecessary and will only lead to problems.

And you are not "dismissing" the POE. Talk about it in the pregame with your partners, if you feel the need, but doing it with the coaches and players is only going to bring problems.

The best way to discuss a POE with coaches and players is with your whistle.

+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.

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

Kumbaya Conference
 

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)

Glad It Turned Out This Way
 

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.

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

No Incidental Contact ???
 

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.)

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?

Perfectly Clear ???
 

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).

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.

Where's The Violation ???
 

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?

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.

I must be missing something
 

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.

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

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.

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? :eek:

More bad editing?

"I was just doing what (insert guy's name) told me to do."

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't think so.

I think some *individuals* got "yelled at" but it was (mostly, at least) with the understanding that (a) the FED could change the interp and (b) the state could have a different interp