2017-18 NFHS Interpretations, Pt.1

[Freddy]

The last pre-season release from the NFHS is always the Interpretations. These typically seem to clarify new or interesting situations, sometimes based on new rules, that merit officials' attention or correct errors made in recently released NFHS publications. Here are the 2017-18 Interpretations as found on their website at: http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...tions-2017-18/


Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2017-18
By NFHS on October 06, 2017

2017-18 NFHS Basketball Preseason Guide Corrections: Page 8, Play 5 Ruling: Eliminate the last sentence, “Had A10 somehow made the three-pointer, …” It is incorrect; Page 8: The comment under the NFHS Foul Chart should read: If one of a multiple foul is intentional or flagrant, two free throws should be given for the intentional or flagrant foul. If the multiple foul includes an intentional foul and a flagrant foul, two free throws should be given for each foul.

2017-18 NFHS Basketball Case Book Alteration – 10.5.1 SITUATION B: At halftime, as the teams, coaches and officials are making their way through a hallway to the dressing room, a Team A member verbally abuses one of the officials. RULING: The official must decide if the offense is major. Under 4-48, if not deemed to be major and neither a warning nor technical has been charged (direct or indirect) to the head coach, the bench personnel could be issued a warning. If a warning is issued, this would be reported to both teams, recorded in the scorebook, and the head coach would lose coaching-box privileges. If the offense was judged to be major or a warning or technical has already been issued to the head coach, a technical foul is charged to the team member and is also charged indirectly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges. The third quarter will begin with two Team B free throws and the ball awarded at the division line for a throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is unaffected. Team A will also have one foul toward the team-foul count. During intermission, all team members are bench personnel and are penalized accordingly. If the conduct is flagrant, the team member shall be disqualified. (4-48, 10-5-1a)

SITUATION 1: School A has placed its 28-foot coaching box parallel to the basketball floor so that it is 10 feet from the division line. RULING: This is an incorrect placement of the coaching box. The 28-foot coaching box should be measured from the end line of the basketball court toward the division line. The end of the coaching box near the scoring table must allow for a minimum of 14 feet of clear space toward the division line. NOTE: Regardless of the length of the coaching box mandated by the state, a minimum 14-foot area beginning at the division line and moving toward the end line should not include any portion of the coaching box regardless of the size and the alternate placement. (1-13-2)

SITUATION 2: The state association has allowed Team A to adjust the placement of its coaching box because of the design of the bleachers and the stairs leading into the bleachers. To gain the full 28 feet for the coaching box, the box has been extended beyond the end line of the playing court. RULING: Illegal placement of the coaching box. The placement of the box can be altered but it cannot extend beyond the end line of the court nor can it encroach into the 14-foot area near the division line. (1-13-2)

SITUATION 3: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s frontcourt. A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. A2 jumps from the team’s frontcourt, catches the ball
in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. When A2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when A2 lands in the backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

SITUATION 4: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1’s deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

SITUATION 5: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is intercepted by B1. B1 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: No violation, legal play. It doesn’t matter if one foot lands before the other provided it is a “normal landing.” Since there was no deflection, the throw-in had not ended. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

SITUATION 6: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s frontcourt (Team B’s backcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt
court and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B’s frontcourt and then steps in Team B’s backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

[bob jenkins]

Thank you for posting these.

And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.

[Smitty]

2017-18 NFHS Basketball Case Book Alteration – 10.5.1 SITUATION B: At halftime, as the teams, coaches and officials are making their way through a hallway to the dressing room, a Team A member verbally abuses one of the officials. RULING: The official must decide if the offense is major. Under 4-48, if not deemed to be major and neither a warning nor technical has been charged (direct or indirect) to the head coach, the bench personnel could be issued a warning. If a warning is issued, this would be reported to both teams, recorded in the scorebook, and the head coach would lose coaching-box privileges.

The part in red can't be true. Coach doesn't lose the coaching box because of a warning, does he?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by NFHS

SITUATION 4: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team’s backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt). A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with B1’s deflection (legal touch). When B2 gains possession/control in the air, he/she has frontcourt status. A backcourt violation has occurred when B2 lands in backcourt. (9-9-1, 9-9-3)

Maybe I'm having a brain cramp, but how is this a violation? How does this not fall under 9-9-3, which allows a player on defense to secure the ball in the air from his/her frontcourt and land in the backcourt?

Am I missing something obvious? The tip by B2 ends the throw-in, but doesn't end the exception for a player on defense. Does it? I feel like this has to be something obvious that I'm overlooking.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thank you for posting these.

And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.

I've been imagining myself in this situation, and I'm pretty concerned about the result. Here...

The tip from B1 happens, and as the ball is headed towards A's backcourt I give the tipped signal... which we are told to do, as a way to let everyone know that it's legal for A to go after the ball w/o committing a backcourt violation. But A2 does like in this case, and I call a backcourt violation. The coach goes off about me giving the tipped signal, but still calling the violation. Do I say "sorry, Coach, I understand your frustration but according to an interpretation in the case book that's the call"?

Hopefully I'm either misinterpreting something, which you'll let me know, or this never happens to me.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Maybe I'm having a brain cramp, but how is this a violation? How does this not fall under 9-9-3, which allows a player on defense to secure the ball in the air from his/her frontcourt and land in the backcourt?

Am I missing something obvious? The tip by B2 ends the throw-in, but doesn't end the exception for a player on defense. Does it? I feel like this has to be something obvious that I'm overlooking.

I believe the tip does cancel the exception, as it is considered a legal touch inbounds... thus ending the free throw and exception.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Maybe I'm having a brain cramp, but how is this a violation? How does this not fall under 9-9-3, which allows a player on defense to secure the ball in the air from his/her frontcourt and land in the backcourt?

Am I missing something obvious? The tip by B2 ends the throw-in, but doesn't end the exception for a player on defense. Does it? I feel like this has to be something obvious that I'm overlooking.

This play has been in there before. The "defense" isn't the "defense" until the "offense" has player control inbounds. (We had a long discussion on here about that once a long long time ago). The only exception that's avaialable on this play is the throw-in exception, and that only applies to the first person to touch / catch the throw-in.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I've been imagining myself in this situation, and I'm pretty concerned about the result. Here...

The tip from B1 happens, and as the ball is headed towards A's backcourt I give the tipped signal... which we are told to do, as a way to let everyone know that it's legal for A to go after the ball w/o committing a backcourt violation. But A2 does like in this case, and I call a backcourt violation. The coach goes off about me giving the tipped signal, but still calling the violation. Do I say "sorry, Coach, I understand your frustration but according to an interpretation in the case book that's the call"?

Hopefully I'm either misinterpreting something, which you'll let me know, or this never happens to me.

Don't give the "tip" signal until the ball reaches the BC.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Don't give the "tip" signal until the ball reaches the BC.

I thought that may be the correct way of doing things, but if Team A holds back from going after the loose ball for fear of committing a backcourt violation, the signal could be pointless by that time.

I guess as long as that interpretation stands, it's the best way to give the signal. Thanks

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

..as a way to let everyone know that it's legal for A to go after the ball w/o committing a backcourt violation.

Not telling you what to do but perhaps instead of thinking of it that way, consider what the NFHS indicated:

"The tipped signal was added to indicate the ball was touched by the defense prior to going into the BC from the FC."

Furthermore, along with Bob's post, the NFHS indicated:

"Brushing one hand over the other indicates that an official has ruled the ball entered the BC as a result of contact with a defensive player."

The signal also communicates to partner an action that they might not have seen. If signaling the deflection as C, it can greatly help calling official T.

Worst case, quickly run over to coach and explain that ball had not gotten to BC yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thank you for posting these.

And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.

Agree...posting it again doesn't make it any more correct than it was the first time.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Smitty

The part in red can't be true. Coach doesn't lose the coaching box because of a warning, does he?

That stuck out to me as well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thank you for posting these.

And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.

That is the interpretation given on three PowerPoint for this year. Same one they used last year. It was only a POE. No change to the actual rule.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thank you for posting these.

And, BOO to the NFHS for doubling down on the interp in play 7.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Smitty

The part in red can't be true. Coach doesn't lose the coaching box because of a warning, does he?

Agree.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Maybe I'm having a brain cramp, but how is this a violation? How does this not fall under 9-9-3, which allows a player on defense to secure the ball in the air from his/her frontcourt and land in the backcourt?

Am I missing something obvious? The tip by B2 ends the throw-in, but doesn't end the exception for a player on defense. Does it? I feel like this has to be something obvious that I'm overlooking.

I agree with you. This is a defensive player. The tip doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

This play has been in there before. The "defense" isn't the "defense" until the "offense" has player control inbounds. (We had a long discussion on here about that once a long long time ago). The only exception that's avaialable on this play is the throw-in exception, and that only applies to the first person to touch / catch the throw-in.

Yes, we had a long discussion of what constituted a "defensive" player during situations without team control. I took the position that team control was required to have an offense and a defense. At that time, NFHS rules did not have team control during a throw-in for the throwing team. This has since been added to the rules in a change.
However, I also seem to recall that the language previously used in the text of the backcourt rule was different. It said something about "a player from a team not in control may..." If that was the case, then B2 would not have committed a violation under that wording and since the NFHS stated that it was not seeking to alter any backcourt rulings when adding team control during a throw-in, the same ruling should apply today.
I will need to do a little research before giving my final opinion on this matter.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree...posting it again doesn't make it any more correct than it was the first time.

Agreed with you then and still agree with you now. BEFORE does not mean SIMULTANEOUSLY.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Smitty

The part in red can't be true. Coach doesn't lose the coaching box because of a warning, does he?

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

That stuck out to me as well.

Me too. Gotta be wrong. The case is familiar, and looks to be an edited version of an old case which didn't include a warning as an option. The only option in the old ruling was a T, which of course resulted in a seat belt. This was an editing oversight.

Honestly, if the NFHS just provided their interps to this forum for peer review prior to publishing, they wouldn't keep making silly mistakes like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

This play has been in there before. The "defense" isn't the "defense" until the "offense" has player control inbounds. (We had a long discussion on here about that once a long long time ago). The only exception that's avaialable on this play is the throw-in exception, and that only applies to the first person to touch / catch the throw-in.

I do remember that discussion now that you bring it back up. I still don't like that way of looking at offense/defense. But thank you for reminding me.