NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Again I think some here are making this too complicated. We will only know for sure when they come out with the new interpretations (that are more than one interpretation).

All we know is what they have changed. The "unusual" interpretation that was so controversial did not follow the rules at the time was either changed to reflect this new rule or it was kept for some reason. Either way, that has nothing to do with the NCAA Rule, because the NCAA Rule was the same as the NF Rule for years and they did not have such a silly interpretation. We will only know when all the literature comes out. I would hope they would address this as they made a POE to discuss this before last season.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We will only know for sure when they come out with the new interpretations. All we know is what they have changed. We will only know when all the literature comes out.

You certainly may be right, but without any additional rule changes (and we've seen them all in the press release) I don't see the current (new) rule doing anything other than fixing the unusual interpretation. I don't see an editorial change (or likewise) making a big impact on the backcourt rule without further rule change language, and, like I've said, we've already seen all the rule changes.

We'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on just the unusual interpretation fix, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, just a few bucks. We all know that the NFHS is certainly capable of doing some odd things with some odd unintended consequences.

I'm still waiting for the NFHS to clean up the "team control throwin only for fouls not for backcourt" fiasco with an actual rule change, not with just a Point of Emphasis (that's not available to new officials). I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Remember this:

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
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.

How are new officials to know this without access to a 2017-18 NFHS Rulebook?

Stupid NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You certainly may be right, but without any additional rule changes (and we've seen them all in the press release) I don't see the current (new) rule doing anything other than fixing the unusual interpretation. I don't see an editorial change (or likewise) making a big impact on the backcourt rule without further rule change language, and, like I've said, we've already seen all the rule changes.

We'll just have to wait and see, but my money's on just the unusual interpretation fix, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, just a few bucks. We all know that the NFHS is certainly capable of doing some odd things with some odd unintended consequences.

Again I do not get why people think this is about one interpretation.

They adopted the NCAA language about a deflection. There are more kinds of deflection than just the one in that interpretation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again I do not get why people think this is about one interpretation.

Again:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please offer how the NFHS rule change impacts a play other than the "unusual interpretation".

Originally Posted by Freddy

It can't. This wording won't allow any change but for that misguided 2006-07 and 2017-18 Interpretation: "An EXCEPTION added to the backcourt violation (9-9-1): To ensure that an offensive team is not unfairly penalized when the ball is deflected by the defense from the frontcourt to the backcourt. This exception allows the offense to recover the ball (that still has frontcourt status) in the backcourt without penalty." ("Basketball Comments on the Rules", May 17, 2018). By stating that they're applying this only to a deflected ball "that still has frontcourt status," this change cannot go as far as the NCAA-M did as their backcourt rule was revised last year to say, "Art. 5. A pass or any other loose ball in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt."

Originally Posted by Freddy

The quote from the later released "Comment..." apparently answers that. The deflection does take place "in" the frontcourt and the frontcourt status of the ball remains when it's touched by an offensive player who then is standing in the backcourt. That's the same condition expressed in that "situation 7" you cite.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are more kinds of deflection than just the one in that interpretation.

... that are already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules.

Please cite one type of deflection that isn't already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules, including the new rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They adopted the NCAA language about a deflection.

That certainly is one way of viewing at it. It can also be viewed it as the NFHS adopting language that was in the bitterly criticized "unusual interpretation", and their remedy for such bitterly criticized language.

In regard to the game of basketball, "deflection" is an oft used word. The NCAA uses it in their backcourt rule, but the NFHS has also used it in a bitterly criticized interpretation. Some may view that it is the latter language that lead to the recent NFHS rule change. And others may differ with that view.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That are already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules.

Please cite one type of deflection that isn't already covered by existing (or preexisting) NFHS rules, including the new rule.

I really do not have the energy to. Again we will find out when all the literature comes out from the NF in all their publications.

I do not get why I would have to try to prove something when none of us are going to edit the rulebooks or casebooks either way.

It is OK, it will be published soon I would suspect. Deal with it then.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I really do not have the energy to. Again we will find out when all the literature comes out ...

And I need to get to the gym, and then to church for the vigil mass.

Nice debate.

[BillyMac]

In addition to the two rules changes approved by the committee, several points of emphasis were identified for the coming season, including concussion recognition, proper procedures for blood issues and coaches monitoring injury and research trends.

“The committee wanted to stress continued education in recognizing signs and symptoms of concussions for coaches, athletes, parents and officials,” Wynns said. “In addition, concern of overuse injuries due to sport specialization should be monitored, and recognition of blood on players and uniforms and the proper procedure for removal of blood and return to play are other areas for education.”

Wynns noted that coaches have primary responsibility for making sure players are wearing legal uniforms and are legally equipped. She said emphasis will be given to rule enforcement in the areas of traveling, legal guarding position and establishing possession during loose-ball situations. Lastly, the committee believes official professionalism and use of proper terminology should be emphasized.

“Overall, the committee believes the rules of the sport are in great shape. These changes provide more clarification in areas where there has been inconsistency in interpretation and will help manufacturers in producing basketballs that meet NFHS specifications,” said Francine Martin, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee chair and assistant executive director of the Kansas State High School Activities Association. “The committee evaluated input from the NFHS basketball rules questionnaire, which is available for all coaches and officials to complete and provide input for future rules changes during the meeting. The points of emphasis are geared toward sports medicine issues and consistent interpretation of playing rules.”

1) No Point of Emphasis regarding backcourt.

2) Is this the reason for the backcourt rule change: These changes provide more clarification in areas where there has been inconsistency in interpretation ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... none of us are going to edit the rulebooks or casebooks ...

Speak for yourself. I'm one (which is one more than "none") of "us" and I've personally suggested three rule changes that have become part of the NFHS Rulebook.

(And when one suggests a new or revised rule, besides offering a logical rationale, one also has to make any and all necessary edits to the NFHS Casebook affected by said rule change.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Speak for yourself. I'm one (which is one more than "none") of "us" and I've personally suggested three rule changes that have become part of the NFHS Rulebook.

(And when one suggests a new or revised rule, besides offering a logical rationale, one also has to make any and all necessary edits to the NFHS Casebook affected by said rule change.)

If you are so connected and knowledgeable, then why are you going on and on about something you do not even know the answer about? Wouldn't you already know? Wouldn't you already have the direct answer? All I see you doing is debating something you are not sure about. Having suggested a rules change is not anything special. You are not on the committee apparently or in a position to vote on such change.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are not on the committee apparently or in a position to vote on such change.

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... none of us are going to edit the rulebooks or casebooks ...

I did.

One of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game.

Just complaining about NFHS rules (not directed at JRutledge, but lots of Forum members, including me) on the Forum, or on other forms of social media, probably won't help fix broken rules (I doubt that the NFHS rules committee keeps tabs on what we're discussing here on the Forum).

When we find broken rules, and we have a possible fix, we should work to fix them. As individual officials. Or through our local, or state organizations. Or through our state interscholastic sports governing bodies. Let's be part of the solution.

We're not "tilting at windmills". Sometimes (not necessarily all the time) the NFHS, through all the bureaucratic fog, listens.

And I'm just an official with absolutely no title within any level of my organization other than member.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.



Say what you will, but you can't dispute the fact that one of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game. And I'm just an official with no title within any level of my organization other than member.

As usual, you make a mountain out of a molehill. The comment was at best an expression considering that to my knowledge or anyone's knowledge there is not a person that is on this site that is a committee member. What you do in your state or if someone listens to you, good for you. But if you were so knowledgeable, then you would not be debating with me (someone not on the NF Committee or claims to even attempt to give rules change suggestions other than a casual conversation with certain people).

We gave you the rules that might have been pulled from the NCAA. It appears that they clearly used similar language from the NCAA in this rules change. You keep going back to some older interpretation that may or may not still apply. You have not given or no one here has shown a single newer interpretation that either supports or opposes any position we have discussed (likely because there is not one posted yet). So until we have some official word from either an NF publication like the casebook, Simplified and Illustrated Book, NF Guidebook or even something more specific in the rulebook right now we are speculating. All reasonable signs point towards an NCAA change and if that is not the case, the NF certainly had to realize that the NCAA changed a rule last season and would have to clarify they are doing something different. After all the NF has not been good at "thinking" of what their literature means in the bigger picture. So why would I be surprised if they did not act like they were aware of the possible confusion they might be caused if I were to believe this was only for one, single interpretation change.

If I was not bored, I probably would not have responded at all to your comments. But this is not about you Billy. Most of these discussions or opinions shared are not about you.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But if you were so knowledgeable, then you would not be debating with me

So I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate with you?

Granted, you're a outstanding official (state finals in multiple sports) and I believe that you are, or were, some type of clinician/trainer/interpreter (these titles don't just go to any knucklehead), but I still have a right to express my opinion.

What makes you think that you can take that right away from me?

Is there a basketball rule gospel according to JRutledge that I don't know about?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It appears that they clearly used similar language from the NCAA in this rules change. You keep going back to some older interpretation that may or may not still apply ... All reasonable signs point towards an NCAA change.

Similar language was the word "deflection" (a common word in the game of basketball).

I agree that the word is used in the NCAA version of the backcourt rule, and that may be a reasonable sign that the NFHS is going in a direction further than that indicated in the press release.

But the word was also used in the bitterly criticized NFHS interpretation, also a reasonable sign that the NFHS just wants to fix a broken interpretation (which, by the way, is also mentioned in the press release).

Older? The NFHS, just last year, doubled down on that bitterly criticized interpretation, making it less than a year old.

We've seen the new backcourt rule language in its entirety. Backcourt is not going to be a Point of Emphasis. The press release stated that the change was to clarify an "inconsistency in interpretation". That's what I'm basing my opinion on. Are those not reasonable signs (I've offered that your side may also be based on reasonable signs)?

I seriously doubt that the NFHS can move to the NCAA version of the backcourt deflection rule without any additional change in the new rule language. An editorial change (which we haven't yet seen), on its own, won't do the trick (editorial changes are usually just minor changes). They wouldn't (or maybe they would, after all, it is the NFHS were discussing here) come up with an NCAA-type deflection backcourt annual interpretation without additional rule language changes (like the NCAA rule). It can happen, but I doubt that it will be this coming season.

I'm just happy that they (apparently) changed that horrible "simultaneous last to touch, first to touch" interpretation. I probably would have never ruled that in a game (if I did it would have taken all the game management skills that I have to keep a coach from being ejected, "But the defender deflected the ball into the backcourt".), but it really bothered me when the NFHS doubled down on it last year.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Similar language was the word "deflection" (a common word in the game of basketball).

I agree that the word is used in the NCAA version of the backcourt rule, and that may be a reasonable sign that the NFHS is going in a direction further than that indicated in the press release.

But the word was also used in the bitterly criticized NFHS interpretation, also a reasonable sign that the NFHS just wants to fix a broken interpretation (which, by the way, is also mentioned in the press release).

Older? The NFHS, just last year, doubled down on that bitterly criticized interpretation, making it less than a year old.

I will put it this way. Our State Administrator for Basketball said that there seems to be a trend from the NF to adopt NCAA Rules for rules changes. So since they adopted this only real rules change, I would doubt that the conversation was not about the NCAA Rule change from last year. I really do not care what the NF doubled down on as it appears that was controversial at least here and if there was a change here, they had to be acutely aware what the NCAA recently changed. If they changed an entire rule to apply to one interpretation and that interpretation was clearly not mentioned in the current literature, then that is awful specific that would have other implications. If they said that "last touch, first touch" was the rule but they have an exception if the defense deflects the ball, then to me that sounds a lot like the NCAA rule.

Again, I reserve the right to see what comes out later from the NF. We are not resolving this in this conversation. I just would find it odd. But as a multiple sports officials that have seen the NF play games with language, anything is possible. And this was at least a clearer than other NF rules when they adopted "horsecollar" language in football or even "obstruction" rules changes in baseball the first time around. I know the NF had to come back and clarify their language or even change the language to reflect their intentions after the fact. Maybe that will be done here too. I have little confidence in the NF's ability to realize the impact of their changes when the wording is the most key part of their understanding of what is intended.

Stay tuned.

Peace