2015/16 NFHS Rule Interpretations

[Freddy]

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)

[Raymond]

"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. "

[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

[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.

[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

[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

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.