NFHS Update

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

A ball deflected by B, then touched by A that goes into the backcourt hasn't been deflected into the backcourt by B...It's been deflected by A.

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.

Yes, they could have fixed that interpretation by an Editorial Change.

This clearly to me is about what the NCAA Rule was last year and the NF changing to that part of the rule.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree with that. I am against the shot clock (in HS) for practical reasons, AND I also think the HS game is better without it.

Agreed.

People will say "it will stop teams from playing stall ball." How many high school teams across the country actually play this way? Just because you read one or two stories about teams holding the ball for an entire quarter doesn't mean it's the norm.

Furthermore, I would bet that most possessions in high school games (at least where I am) don't last more than 30 seconds before a try hits the rim.

Originally Posted by Rich

I agree. I think the whole "good of the game" argument is just a bunch of crap.

0% of NFHS decision-making should be tied to "preparing players to play at the next level."

It's similar to when people talk about doing things "for the kids." Balderdash. People that want the shot clock in high school want it because that's what the higher levels do.

The skill levels that NFHS rules are written for are encompass a much wider spectrum than higher-level rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, they could have fixed that interpretation by an Editorial Change.

This clearly to me is about what the NCAA Rule was last year and the NF changing to that part of the rule.

Agreed. FED seems to adopt an NCAA rule or two every offseason, so this change would be consistent with that trend.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.

They have done it before.

It is easier to say they're changing the rule rather than admitting they had doubled down on an incorrect interpretation.