NFHS Rules Changes 2016-17

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

I did not see this enough to matter. At least it is in the book now and not a speculation as to if we call a T or not.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

http://www.nfhs.org/articles/new-rul...ol-basketball/

New Rule on Free-Throw Lane Violations Approved in High School Basketball
May 18, 2016

A new rule regarding free-throw lane violations in high school basketball has been added for clarification. Players occupying the marked free-throw lane line spaces cannot enter the free-throw semicircle until the ball touches the ring or the free throw ends.

Rule 9-1-3h was one of five rules changes recommended by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Basketball Rules Committee at its April 20-22 meeting in Indianapolis. The changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

After reviewing the entire free-throw process, the committee approved the addition to Rule 9-1-3 in an effort to make the rule easier to understand and to create a safer environment for the free-throw shooter.

“This new rule was approved by the committee in order to reduce rough play,” said Theresia Wynns, NFHS director of sports and officials and liaison to the rules committee. “Part of what we had observed over several seasons was pushing and the displacement of the free-throw shooter after he or she shot the ball. The new rule will hopefully stop rough play.”

In addition, the Basketball Rules Committee added Rule 1-20 regarding non-playing personnel – such as cheerleaders – on the court during a short time-out. The new rule states that “non-playing personnel shall remain outside of the playing area during a 30-second or less time-out during the game. Non-playing personnel shall stand outside the free-throw lane lines extended toward the sidelines throughout the game.”

By formalizing awareness of the standards set for non-playing personnel, game officials are able to direct non-playing personnel to an appropriate place outside the playing court.

“The main reason for this additional rule is to minimize risk for everyone,” Wynns said. “Whether a cheerleader or a photographer, having restrictions will help with the overall safety of those near the playing area.”

In addition to these new rules, the rules committee reduced the time to replace a disqualified or injured player from 20 seconds to 15 in Rule 2-12-5. The committee believed that the amount of time presently given is too long and allows for gamesmanship to be displayed.

“After coaches have seen a player get injured or foul out, they already have an idea of who they want in the game as a replacement,” Wynns said. “But they tend to use that time for other reasons, so lessening the time will help uphold the principle of the rule.”

The rules committee also removed restrictions pertaining to player equipment. All extra apparel is permitted to have one logo according to Rule 3-5-6. Last year the committee simplified the color requirements to be consistent on all sleeves, tights, wristbands and headbands. Adding the compression shorts to this rule will assist officials in simplifying enforcement of the uniform rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

I think this is a major revenue stream for them. I doubt that will happen unless they can sell something else to fill the void.

Also my state already gives out books every other year. So this might be something your state would have to do first.

Peace

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

If this had a "Like" button I would click on it.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

I'm just relieved that they didn't completely forget about it again. How much you wanna bet this one was already decided in the hotel lobby before the committee ever saw a conference table?

More important then the rule itself will be the supporting case plays. There is a whole range of truths and myths about how to handle this violation and any complicating fouls. I thought the pre-season guide and the interps last year did a decent job of laying out those situations. Problem is....many officials, especially new ones....never read that stuff.

Originally Posted by Rich

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

I would hope no warning horn at all. I always thought the warning horn five seconds in was stupid, and most table personnel had no idea how to handle that anyway. My thinking is that it's the coach's responsibility to know that once he's notified, his 15 seconds is soon to start and when the horn sounds, he better have a sub identified and standing up. For me, I probably give him one final chance to stop screwing around ("Coach, I need a sub right now!") and absent an immediate response I'll consider a T.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not see this enough to matter. At least it is in the book now and not a speculation as to if we call a T or not.

I saw it a fair amount. Typically I'll see one of two outcomes: either the sub is already on his way to the table when I'm notifying the coach, or the coach milks it for every second he can get. I don't see much in between.

Your remark implies that the rule wasn't clear in the past on when a T is appropriate. I disagree. The rule has always been clear, but officials often give a lot of leeway. I'm not sure this will change just because we remove five seconds from the interval. Because both 2-p and 3-p mechanics call for the calling official to stay tableside, that official, who has probably already irked the coach for DQ'ing his player, now is left to "pile on" and enforce the replacement interval. So there's a natural hesitation to enforce a T when you already just DQ'd a player. To make the rule effective, it will take heavy-duty state and assignor support for whacking coaches in this situation, and I just don't envision much of an appetite for that.

[Rich]

No hesitation here. No sub by the second horn is a technical foul. No reason to give extra chamces -- that what the warning horn is for.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

No hesitation here. No sub by the second horn is a technical foul. No reason to give extra chamces -- that what the warning horn is for.

If there is a warning horn. There might not be one now.

Regardless, as an official who might work a game or two for you in the next few years, I consider myself notified (and appreciative) of your philosophy.

[Rich]

No warning horn would be a step backwards, in my opinion.

[Matt S.]

If they treat it like the NCAA, it'll be a warning horn right away when the official notifies the table, and a T if there's no sub report d by the second horn.

NCAA-W made the change to 15 last year and it went fine. Just have to be deliberate in notifying the player, coach, partners, then table to 'work with' coaches in this instance.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I would hope no warning horn at all. I always thought the warning horn five seconds in was stupid, and most table personnel had no idea how to handle that anyway.

This is the best solution. I've run into the same issue with table personnel even after having pre-gamed with them. 5 seconds and then a horn was just silly.

[OKREF]

Devils Advocate here.....Is the bench now considered non playing personal? I don't think the bench is considered non playing personal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

No warning horn would be a step backwards, in my opinion.

I don't see how it's needed, although the first year could see a few more Ts if they don't have one as coaches who aren't aware of the change are expecting a warning horn.

But in reality, my verbal direction to the timer to start the 15 second clock IS the warning.

I've only had to give one T for this in the past, and he didn't get any coaxing from me once I started the timer. 2nd horn went off, and my whistle followed.

[Adam]

And I'm going to assume the Team control/back court cluster fark is still broken.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Your remark implies that the rule wasn't clear in the past on when a T is appropriate. I disagree. The rule has always been clear, but officials often give a lot of leeway.

My comments were not about the D'Q interval butt he FT rules. I think you are lumping my comments into someone else's comments.

Peace