2017-18 NFHS Comments, POE's
 

Comments on the Rules

Change to the coaching box rule (1-13-2): This rule change allows for state associations to alter the length and placement of the 28 foot (maximum) coaching box. The area shall be bounded by a line drawn 28 feet from the end line towards the Division line. The head coach must still be seated within the designated coaching box.

Officials to use two hands when reporting fouls (2-9-1): Officials will now use two hands to indicate to the scorer the number of the offender. The right hand of the official will give the tens and the left hand of the official will give the ones. If the number is 32 the right hand would show the scorer the three and left hand would show the scorer the two while verbalizing 32. Both hands of the official are shown to the scorer at the same time.

New sentence (3-4-1d): There are restrictions on what identifying names may be placed on the team jersey from the imaginary line at the base of the neckline to the top of the shoulder and in the corresponding area on the back of the jersey. (see Article 3-4-4).

Change to allowable identifying names (3-4-4a): This rule stipulates what is permissible to put on to the team jersey in the allowable areas. i.e. School name, school’s nickname, school logo, player’s name and/or abbreviation of the official team name. 3-4-4 has a new letter b. This now states that the panel in the shoulder area of the jersey on the back may be used for placing an identifying name as well.

New rule for officials to issue a warning (4-48-1 and 2): Officials may now issue a warning to the coach or the team bench. These warnings can be for conduct that is described in 10-5 or 10-6. If the offense is deemed to be major, the official may assess a technical foul in either situation. A warning is not required prior to assessing a technical foul. These warnings will be recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.

EDITORIAL CHANGES

(3-5-2C NOTE): This was moved from 3-5-3d to better align with where braces are addressed in the rule book.

(4-4-7b): Changed the word player to thrower or free thrower.

(9-12 Penalty 1): Changes the rule reference from 10-3-9 to 10-4-9.

Technical-Foul Penalty Summary-Head Coach: Changed 20 seconds to 15 seconds.


Points of Emphasis

1. Equipment worn on head for medical or religious reason. Specific procedures have been established for allowing a head covering to be worn for medical or religious reasons. A player who is required to wear a head covering for medical or religious reasons must provide a physician statement or appropriate documented evidence to the state association for approval. If approved, the state association shall provide written authorization to the school to be made available to officials.

2. Team control, throw-in. The relevance of team control during a throw-in only applies when a member of the throw- in team fouls. Such fouls shall be ruled team control fouls. Team control during a throw-in is NOT intended to be the same as player control/team control inbounds. Team control inbounds is established when a player from either team who has inbound status gains control of the ball. During the throw-in, 10-seconds, 3-seconds, frontcourt status, backcourt status, closely guarded, etc., are NOT factors as there has yet to be player control/team control obtained inbounds.

With specific regard to the backcourt violation; a team may not be the last to touch a live ball in the front court and then be the first to touch a live ball in the backcourt, provided that team has establish player control/team control on the playing court (either in the backcourt or frontcourt). BY RULE EXCEPTION, during a throw-in a team may leave the front court, establish player control/team control while airborne and land in the backcourt. This is a legal play and ONLY applies to the first player of the offense who touches the ball PRIOR to the end of the throw-in.

3. Intentional Fouls. The committee is concerned about the lack of enforcement for intentional fouls during any part of the game but especially at the end of a game. The intentional foul rule has evolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act, it is contact that:

Neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.
Contact on an opponent who is clearly not in the play.
May be excessive contact.
Contact that is not necessarily premeditated or based solely on the severity of the act.

This type of foul may be strategic to stop the clock or create a situation that may be tactically done for the team taking action. This foul may be innocent in severity, but without any playing of the ball, it becomes an intentional act such as a player wrapping their arms around an opponent. The act may be excessive in its intensity and force of the action. These actions are all intentional fouls and are to be called as such.
Officials must be aware of the game situations as the probability of fouling late in the game is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by many coaches in some form. Officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule properly.

4. Guarding. The addition of rule 10.7.12, has been successful in its intent to clean up illegal contact on the ballhandler/dribbler and post players. Players are attempting to
replace this illegal contact with contact observed as “body bumping”. Illegal contact with the body must be ruled a foul however, officials must accurately identify if the defense or offense causes the contact and penalize the player causing the illegal contact. Once a defensive player obtains legal guarding position by facing an opponent with both feet of the floor inbounds, he/she may move to maintain that position in any direction except toward the offensive player being guarded when contact occurs. The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court and may jump vertically or laterally to maintain the legal position. If contact occurs prior to the offensive player getting head and shoulders passed the defender the responsibility is on the offensive player.

POE #2 should pretty much clear up any questions or confusion anyone might have. If it isn't clear to anyone who had problems with this, it never will be.

The only issue is that if they did not completely change the rules language that reflects that position beyond this year. Part of the problem is the NF had some confusing language in both the rulesbook and interpretations in the casebook. But this is a pretty clear statement in its own right.

Peace

You Can Look It Up ???
 

Yes it will, for the 2018-19 rookie officials who will never get to see this Point of Emphasis. When will the NFHS figure out to put this situation in the rulebook, and/or case book, where it will be a permanent fixture that won't require it to be a continual Point of Emphasis.

Agree.

I Did Not Know That ...
 

I didn't know that a defensive player is not required to keep both feet on the playing court after moving to maintain position after obtaining legal guarding position with both feet of the floor inbounds. I always thought that if contact was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds, that it was always a blocking foul.

I've been schooled.

I would think you're half right, if upon trying to establish a LGP, one foot is OOB, it would be a foul on the defense. I also think that maybe what they are meaning by saying not having to keep both feet on the playing floor means the defense can jump, or be moving and a foot or both would be off the floor, since it was mentioned earlier.

Lost Youth ...
 

That's exactly what they mean. When the "having to have both feet inbounds" rule first came out about twenty years ago, we were taught (locally, probably in error) that if contact was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds (before, or after, obtaining legal guarding position), that it was always a blocking foul.

I remember when the rule first came out, how upset many of us were because most of us, as players (in the good old days of our youth) were taught by our coaches to not give up any path inbounds along the sideline (especially while in a pressing situation), even if it meant being in a position out of bounds.

According to the Point of Emphasis, while defenders on the sideline can't "set up" out of bounds, they can legally move laterally out of bounds.

Maybe it's always been like that, but, locally, we've never been taught it that way.

I've been calling this wrong for about twenty years. Luckily, I've probably only called it incorrectly, two, or three times. Usually, a foul by the defense, in this specific situation, seldom involves the defender touching the sideline. They usually do something else wrong, like moving toward the dribbler, or sticking out a leg.

You really been having an issue with this Billy? I cannot think of one time since they made it clear you cannot being out of bounds where I had to even have a call that related to this rule specifically. This is just so rare that players even try to defend while clearly out of bounds. I do not even remember it being taught much at all.

Peace

As Rare As A Hen's Tooth ...
 

As indicated in my post, I agree with you that plays involving legal guarding position and the out of bounds sideline are very rare. Issues? Not until I noticed the wording in this year's Point of Emphasis. As far as being taught the rule, we were only taught once, when the rule first came point, and back then, it was made clear to us that if contact with a sideline dribbler (especially in a pressing trapping situation) was made by a defensive player having at least one foot out of bounds (before, or after, obtaining legal guarding position), that it was always a blocking foul.

After the rule regarding legal guarding position and out of bounds came out twenty years ago, has it always been clearly worded by the NFHS that it's been legal to "move" out of bounds after being "set" inbounds? Or is this year's Point of Emphasis the first time we've seen such wording?

To give POE 3 some actual teeth, I would change the concluding sentence to read:

"Assignors must have the courage to back up their their officials who enforce the intentional foul rule properly."

I hate to say it, but I don't think officials are the barrier to change here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not much of a problem here or at least in my experience. We could use that line with just about anything. If you do not have assignors that back officials for doing their job whether it is intentional fouls, uniform issues or coaching box situations, then we all have some problems with the rules that we are asked to enforce. I tell people here we have 3 layers of rules understanding or application. First we have our assignor that gave us the game. Then we have our state or governing body that sanctions the games and in our case assigns playoffs. And then we have our personal philosophies we have to deal with as well. All of these things play a role in what we do and what our confidence level is to do the job properly.

Peace

Foggy memory but I swear that there was a case play specifically regarding a foot OOB and it being an automatic foul on the defense. I will have to go digging.

2017-18 NFHS Comments, POE's
 

Almost. I'm just saying there's something unique about IPFs, especially late in games. My experience is that what's observed by the official has to be pretty darn egregious for the assignor or camp clinician to support an IPF. The preferred result, even for the casual bear hug as exemplified in the POE, is typically a common foul and bonus FTs.

So....IMHO, generally speaking there is a disconnect between what the committee wants done and what assignors want done. This puts officials—whom the committee seems to want to blame a paucity in IPFs on—in a tough spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paucity? Wow, have not seen/used that in a long time, only a scantiness.;)

The phraseology explaining this situation may not be worded ideally, but there isn't anything here that would merit removal of 4.23.3B from the Casebook. It's not talking about putting a foot on the line or off the playing court in that sense. It's talking about jumping and in that way "leaving the playing court."
Pick up your diploma from the principal's office. Your schooling has ended. Long ago.

. . . or am I missing out on a joke here and overstating the obvious?

4.23.3B.
And I don't think anything put out just now invalidates that.

I Believe That I Misread The Points Of Emphasis ...
 

Thanks Freddy.

4.23.3 SITUATION B: A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal
guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot
touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when
A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul
because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding
position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained
and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

4-23-2: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne,
provided he/she has inbound status.

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
4. Guarding. ... Once a defensive player obtains legal guarding position by facing an opponent with both feet of the floor inbounds, he/she may move to maintain that position in any direction except toward the offensive player being guarded when contact occurs. The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court and may jump vertically or laterally to maintain the legal position. If contact occurs prior to the offensive player getting head and shoulders passed the defender the responsibility is on the offensive player.

I believe that I've misread the new Point of Emphasis. I took, "The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court" to mean that the defensive player is allowed to be out of bounds (off the playing court), especially since the statement appears one sentence after the statement, "both feet of the floor inbounds".

In reality, thanks to Freddy's post, I now believe that, "The defense is not required to keep both feet on the playing court", really means that the defensive player may, "jump vertically" (off the playing court).

I'm sorry if I wasted everybody's time.

Freddy's post (above) makes me feel a little better. Not much, but a little.

And some figured it out a while ago.

This is why I like hanging out with people smarter than me. They're always there to fix my mistakes. If any of you guys need a partner next season, give me a call.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=175&h=173

That sounds like a local issue, which I am sure we all have to deal with on some level. I get what you are saying, but I think this is not a problem for everyone or even with this rule. But we could say that about other rules as well. Heck we had a state that told us about uniform things and hand-checking and coaching box stuff and had an assignor who basically wanted us to ignore that stuff or said, "In the ........ we are not calling that...." But that was one guy and I over the years have started to slowly not take games for him anymore. I got tired of having to compromise my feelings on rules for a place or conference that was not that spectacular in the first place. Now there are other assignors I work for that have no issues with our enforcing rules and they support you when you do. So this seems to me like something that might be accepted in some areas and others areas not so much.

Peace

As a parent of a varsity player, I'm really curious to see what actually happens with IPFs next year. It seems to me that from time to time there is a focus and more IPFs are called, but then things drift back. The fouls at the end of the game seem so ingrained that it is really hard to change.

Intentional Fouls ...
 

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we've had no issues with intentional fouls. We're all pretty much on the same page, even most of the coaches. We all call intentional fouls when there is contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play; when the contact is not a legitimate attempt to play defense (defense grabs the jersey, or pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player); when there is excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball; or when there is contact with a thrower-in.

We (officials, players, coaches, even a few fans) all realize that fouling late in a close game is a legitimate strategy, but the players better avoid the above mentioned acts or the fouled player will get two shots and his team will get the ball back at the site of the foul.