2016-17 POE's

[OKREF]

2016-17 BASKETBALL COMMENTS ON THE RULES

NEW SECTION (1-20): Clarifies the location of non-playing personnel along the end line. The addition of this new section makes it clear that non-playing personnel shall not be located within the area of the free throw lane lines extended. Non-playing personnel shall be located outside the free throw lane lines extended.

REPLACING DISQUALIFIED OR INJURED PLAYER, OR FOR A PLAYER DIRECTED TO LEAVE THE GAME (2.12.5):
This rule changes the time allowed for replacing a player who has been disqualified, injured or directed to leave the game from 20-seconds to 15 seconds.

UNDERSHIRTS (3.5.6): This rule change now allows for undershirts to have a logo. The change now allows ALL extra apparel that is worn to have one logo (3.6).

RULE ARTICLE DELETED (3.5.7): Article 7 of Rule 3 Section 5 has been deleted. It is no longer needed and will simplify the enforcement of rules regarding team member’s apparel for officials and coaches.

EDITORIAL CHANGES

(3.5.3 – NOTE): The committee expanded the definition of a
brace for clarification purposes.
(9.1.3a): Deleted “or backboard”

NEW ARTICLE (9.1.3h): Players occupying marked free throw
lane line spaces may not enter the free throw semicircle until
the ball touches the ring or until the free throw ends.

FREE-THROW PROVISIONS: (9.1 PENALTIES 4b): Addition of
“behind the free throw line extended and/or the three-point
line,” to the present penalty statement.

BENCH TECHNICAL (10.5.3): Added the use of e-cigarettes.

[JRutledge]

E-Cigarettes? That was a problem somewhere?

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

E-Cigarettes? That was a problem somewhere?

Peace

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

e-cigarettes huh?

Same question we asked all those years ago when tobacco products - smokeless or otherwise - were put in the rule book. Someone, somewhere used it and probably argued there was no rule against it.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Same question we asked all those years ago when tobacco products - smokeless or otherwise - were put in the rule book. Someone, somewhere used it and probably argued there was no rule against it.

I'm not familiar with every US states smoking regulations but are there schools/buildings/courts etc where they would be allowed to do this anyway?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not familiar with every US states smoking regulations but are there schools/buildings/courts etc where they would be allowed to do this anyway?

Not all games, even high school games, are played in school facilities. Many state tournament games, and preseason tournaments, are played in arenas not affiliated with any school (not even a college).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not all games, even high school games, are played in school facilities. Many state tournament games, and preseason tournaments, are played in arenas not affiliated with any school (not even a college).

You cannot smoke in most facilities no matter the affiliation in this state. It is either state or country laws that prevent this from happening even in private buildings on some level (business buildings). Even these e-cigarettes are prohibited to my understanding just like any tobacco product.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot smoke in most facilities no matter the affiliation in this state. It is either state or country laws that prevent this from happening even in private buildings on some level (business buildings). Even these e-cigarettes are prohibited to my understanding just like any tobacco product.

Peace

A lot of buildings allow e cigarettes that don't allow traditional cigarettes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Kansas Ref]

e-cigarettes huh?

[ballgame99]

[RedAndWhiteRef]

Minor nitpick, but wouldn't it be P'sOE? We're not talking" point of emphases."

I have this similar gripe with "RBI's" in baseball. Run batted ins?

Carry on.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by RedAndWhiteRef

Minor nitpick, but wouldn't it be P'sOE? We're not talking" point of emphases."

I have this similar gripe with "RBI's" in baseball. Run batted ins?

Carry on.

Because POE, and RBI, deal with a multi-word noun, it is proper to use a plural of POE's and RBI's, or POEs and RBIs when referring to the acronym, or better stated, the initialism. (Most grammarians agree that initialisms are included in acronyms, although there is ongoing conversation regarding the use of the ( 's) form, because of confusion with the possessive form.
However, if one uses the full words, for which the three letter designation is utilized, the verbiage is most correctly stated as "points of emphasis" and "runs batted-in."

And, yes, it is the off-season, so interests and topics on the forum often journey far afield of our usual banter . . .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

BENCH TECHNICAL (10.5.3): Added the use of e-cigarettes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Billy:

Great picture and check out the state of the art basketball shoes on the players.

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

Was anyone else looking for clarification as to whether a foul is merited by mere contact with the thrower after a lane space player crosses into the semicircle before the ball strikes the ring, or whether the contact must rise above incidental?
I might be wrong, but I think that still is an open question in some states.
POE #4 says, "...contact and displacement of the free thrower is illegal and shall be enforced." So maybe something in Rule 10 stipulating "more than incidental" will be added to state that clearly.
Perhaps that will be an unannounced change to the rulesbook when it comes out later.
Am I on the right track here? Or off the rails?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Was anyone else looking for clarification as to whether a foul is merited by mere contact with the thrower after a lane space player crosses into the semicircle before the ball strikes the ring, or whether the contact must rise above incidental?
I might be wrong, but I think that still is an open question in some states.
POE #4 says, "...contact and displacement of the free thrower is illegal and shall be enforced." So maybe something in Rule 10 stipulating "more than incidental" will be added to state that clearly.
Perhaps that will be an unannounced change to the rulesbook when it comes out later.
Am I on the right track here? Or off the rails?

If we believe the grammar (and I'm not sure we can) both contact AND displacement will be required to have a foul. If either would lead to a foul, then the verb would be "are."

(And, since you can't have displacement without contact, that word would be superfluous.)