2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes

[Kansas Ref]

OK, all or most of these "changes" are really quite perfunctory in nature; what I want to know is: 1) was there any critical discussion for modifications that involved:

1) Goal-tending [GT]---change to just make it a goaltend violation if ball hits the backboard on a try prior to being blocked regardless if the ball is still on the way upwards after said block contact? To my knowledge this is not a GT if B1 hits ball even after ball has made contact with backboard, provided said try for goal is still on the way up.

2) Ball gets lodged betw. ring and backboard on a try for goal---change to essentially consider this occurrence as the ball being inadvertently "put out-of-play" by the offensive team and then to allow the defensive team to get possession of the ball? To accomplish this without disturbing the AP arrow.

3) Foul Reporting mechanic ? To enable the Trail to be positioned opposite table during FT attempts so the Trail can better see who is subbing in and to better observe the score table for management purposes. Currently the mechanic has the Trail with his/her back to the score table, which is both inefficient and bad optics.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

...

3) Foul Reporting mechanic ? To enable the Trail to be positioned opposite table during FT attempts so the Trail can better see who is subbing in and to better observe the score table for management purposes. Currently the mechanic has the Trail with his/her back to the score table, which is both inefficient and bad optics.

Or just use the NBA mechanic of having the Lead monitor for subs on free throws (this could apply to 2-man as well as 3-man).

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Or just use the NBA mechanic of having the Lead monitor for subs on free throws (this could apply to 2-man as well as 3-man).

*Good idea there!

**Also, to promote even more efficiency, have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA. I would like to see this done by us; good optics there.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

*Good idea there!

**Also, to promote even more efficiency, have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA. I would like to see this done by us; good optics there.

1) Lead should do this anyway (as should C).

2) Didn't we used to do this? or, maybe it was only two person.

Frankly, I don't see that either of these adds anything (nor are they particularly negative)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Didn't we used to do this? or, maybe it was only two person.

Two person NFHS trail, back in the mid to late twentieth century.

Possibly only first try (Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will remember).

Always handed from the left side of the shooter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line. After the violation, where is the subsequent designated spot throwin for Team B?

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

At the original spot of the throw-in; in this case, on the endline.

A throwin violation, or an out of bounds violation?

9-2-2: The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court
from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds
or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree (with ilyazhito). Unless there is a case play or interpretation that says otherwise, then I think this is still an out of bounds violation. The only person that caused the ball to be out of bounds was the person receiving the pass.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

He's (ilyazhito) wrong. At least in FED ...

Any other comments for the good of the cause?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

To my knowledge this is not a GT if B1 hits ball even after ball has made contact with backboard, provided said try for goal is still on the way up.

Correct, the NFHS rule and interpretation hasn't changed.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up immediately after it contacts the backboard, and in this situaion it is legal for a defender to touch the ball if it is not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference, nor is it goaltending, and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot, and accidentally slaps the backboard, it is neither a violation, nor is it a technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line. After the violation, where is the subsequent designated spot throwin for Team B?

Have esteemed Forum members come to a consensus that this is an out of bounds violation rather than a throwin violation?

Has this topic not generated a lot of debate because the answer is so clear and simple?

Two members say it's an out of bounds violation (bob jenkins, JRutledge, also add third member, BillyMac).

One member says it's a throwin violation (ilyazhito).

[JRutledge]

It seems simple to me, if the player never touches the ball after the ball has been throw-in, then what causes the ball to be out of bounds? That is your answer. We do not need consensus IMO.

I also do not know when the last time I have seen such a play BTW (if ever).

Peace

[ilyazhito]

I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in). The same thing would apply if the thrower-in threw the ball inbounds and touched it himself before it touched or was touched by a teammate or opponent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed

Agree 100%.

A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

It is a throw-in violation (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in).

But the rule states "inbounds or out of bounds".

9-2-2: The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court
from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds
or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

For this reason, I believe it's an out of bounds violation, not a throwin violation. Team B's ball for a designated spot throwin at the sideline boundary near the division line.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in). The same thing would apply if the thrower-in threw the ball inbounds and touched it himself before it touched or was touched by a teammate or opponent.

Of course.

But it's not the question that was asked.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Have esteemed Forum members come to a consensus that this is an out of bounds violation rather than a throwin violation?
Has this topic not generated a lot of debate because the answer is so clear and simple?
Two members say it's an out of bounds violation (bob jenkins, JRutledge, also add third member, BillyMac).
One member says it's a throwin violation (ilyazhito).

Not sure if I'm late for the party on this one, but has this 2007,08 Interpretation been cited?

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Not sure if I'm late for the party on this one, but has this 2007,08 Interpretation been cited?

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

That is why I said if there was an interpretation I would be willing to change my mind. But obviously, if you think about it what else would it be if you really think of why we are calling the violation?

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I said if there was an interpretation I would be willing to change my mind. But obviously, if you think about it what else would it be if you really think of why we are calling the violation?

Peace

The "OOB violation" was the rule / interp for a number of years. Then, unexplainedly, NFHS changed it to "TI violation" -- probably just a year or so before Freddy's interp above. They quickly changed it back -- it's too bad they didn't follow this precedent on the "catching a ball in the BC" situation.