New 16/17 Rules Book

[Freddy]

Just came yesterday. A line-by-line comparison of this year's book and last season's:

ERRORS:
The errors in last year's edition (9-1-3a, 9-1-PENALTIES 4a) were corrected.
As far as new errors in this year's issue, I'd appreciate knowing of any you find, but I couldn't detect any.

ANNOUNCED CHANGES:
The ones they told us to expect by way of rules changes and editorial changes seemed to all be accounted for.

TECHNICAL FOUL SECTIONS REVISION:
Regarding their advance announcement that they were going to reorganize the technical foul sections to make them more orderly and easy to grasp -- all they really did was make Rule 10 of the rulebook more closely match the titles of the chart on p.71. Draw a line under old 10-1-4 and entitle the above "Administrative Technical", then leave the remainder of old 10-5 thru 10-10 "Team Technical", add the clarifying sentence, "Head coach does not lose the privilege of the coaching box" for each . . . and that's about it. Nothing changed there really, that I could detect. Merely a new title we all probably went by before.

UNANNOUNCED CHANGES:
You can decide if these are merely for the sake of clarification or if there are really any substantive rule changes set upon us by these:

4-19-7 was: A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control (including a member of the throw-in team from the start of the throw-in until player control is obtained inbounds)
4-19-7 now is: A team-control foul is a common foul committed by a member of the team that has team control or by a member of the throw-in team from the start of the throw-in until player control is obtained inbounds.

4-42-5a was: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.
4-42-5a now is: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.

10-5-5 NOTE was: The head coach may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out -- has broken out -- to prevent the situation from escalating.
10-5-5 NOTE now is: The head coach may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out -- or has broken out -- to prevent the situation from escalating.

That's all I could find. Anything else worthy of note, I'd appreciate hearing from you on it.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Freddy

4-42-5a was: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.
4-42-5a now is: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.

Does this mean the arrow changes when an AP throw-in is kicked by the defense?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Altor

Does this mean the arrow changes when an AP throw-in is kicked by the defense?

depends on your definition of the word touched.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

Does this mean the arrow changes when an AP throw-in is kicked by the defense?

It might. But I think this does not change much of anything in the bigger picture. The team that violated will not get the ball on the next throw-in and for purposes of giving the ball to the wrong team, this ends the time it can be corrected.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Just came yesterday. A line-by-line comparison of this year's book and last season's:

4-42-5a was: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is legally touched by another player inbounds.
4-42-5a now is: The throw-in ends when: a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.

Originally Posted by Altor

Does this mean the arrow changes when an AP throw-in is kicked by the defense?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It might. But I think this does not change much of anything in the bigger picture. The team that violated will not get the ball on the next throw-in and for purposes of giving the ball to the wrong team, this ends the time it can be corrected.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

D'Nutch, are you saying that . . .
A1 releases an AP throw-in which is kicked by B2. It's A's throw-in due to the violation but B's AP arrow because of the "new" 4-42-5a?
Am I reading your response correctly?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

I am only asking for the purposes of the throw-in ending like when we make a mistake and give it to the wrong team, would any such touch end that time when when we can make the correction for an AP throw-in. I was not disagreeing with Altor's position. Just stating that that might be the only consequence to this rule change.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This coming year's R4-S42-A5a was the original rule and was changed some years back to last year's R4-S42-A5a to eliminate what Altor has suggested. There is no way that this year's R4-S42-A5a can be interpreted any other way that what Altor has suggested.

MTD, Sr.

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" etc. they mix up their words. i don't think it changes anything although u can argue it from the words used.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" etc. they mix up their words. i don't think it changes anything although u can argue it from the words used.

The change does mean just what I said. Unless the NFHS issues a statement stating that the change was a typo the rules means the that the rule will revert back to the old ruling.

MTD, Sr.

[Altor]

Freddy, do you have the case book too? Can you confirm whether 4.42.5 has been removed or is still in print?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Altor

Freddy, do you have the case book too? Can you confirm whether 4.42.5 has been removed or is still in print?

The new casebook I ordered, though "Available in August", has not been delivered yet. Will report to the forum after I get it.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The change does mean just what I said. Unless the NFHS issues a statement stating that the change was a typo the rules means the that the rule will revert back to the old ruling.

MTD, Sr.

I'm sure we will hear more about it. My point is that this would be a significant change. You would think it would be an "announced change." When its "unannounced" it leads me to believe somebody is thinking they are cleaning up some language but not thinking through everything that the change affects. We will see...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm sure we will hear more about it. My point is that this would be a significant change. You would think it would be an "announced change." When its "unannounced" it leads me to believe somebody is thinking they are cleaning up some language but not thinking through everything that the change affects. We will see...

Big Cat:

I agree with you. But you never know with rules committees when most of the members are not officials.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't think at all they are trying to go back as you suggest.they just don't think of the consequences of the words they use. 4.42.5 I think, has said for years that the AP throwin ended when ball was kicked. New throw in for violation. That was not a "legal touch" ...

Here's the "old" wording:

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to
where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession
throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and
therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession
throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession
throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered.
When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking
violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.

[Raymond]

I'm waiting for someone to tell us that the rules are always clear and that we should know what the FED really wants.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk