2019-20 NFHS Interpretations

[SC Official]

8/10 interps are fashion police. That might be a new record.

Originally Posted by Freddy

SITUATION 10: At halftime, Team A is leading the game. A1, A2 and A3 are passing the ball among themselves to run time off the clock while not allowing Team B to gain control of the ball. B1 goes out and pushes A1 to stop the clock. The official calls a personal foul. RULING: Incorrect call. The foul was deliberate and should have been called an intentional foul. A1 should shoot two free throws and Team A should be awarded the ball for a throw-in at the spot nearest the foul. (4-19-3c)

At the risk of being pedantic (and beating a dead horse), does no one who knows proper terminology review these interps?

Also, "at halftime" implies that the first half is over.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

"at halftime" implies that the first half is over.

Agree. So it must be a dead ball intentional contact technical foul.

Does anybody at the NFHS read these before publishing?

Shouldn't they have an editor? Wait ... I'm being told ... Who ... Theresia Wynns ... Never mind.

[BillyMac]

(Tony Orlando and Dawn, 1973)

SITUATION 2: A1 is wearing a ribbon to control her hair. RULING: Illegal. Ribbons are considered decorations and the athlete should not be allowed to enter the contest while wearing a ribbon in the hair. (3-5-4e)

3-5-D: Rubber, cloth or elastic bands may be used to control hair.

I've been screwing this up for forty years. Ribbons are made of cloth. Cloth is a legal material for hair control devices. How does one use a cloth ribbon to control hair? By tying it in a knot.

I've always allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

I guess that I was wrong. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

I'll be sure to rule this situation correctly for the next forty years.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Tony Orlando and Dawn, 1973)

SITUATION 2: A1 is wearing a ribbon to control her hair. RULING: Illegal. Ribbons are considered decorations and the athlete should not be allowed to enter the contest while wearing a ribbon in the hair. (3-5-4e)

3-5-D: Rubber, cloth or elastic bands may be used to control hair.

I've been screwing this up for forty years. Ribbons are made of cloth. Cloth is a legal material for hair control devices. How does one use a cloth ribbon to control hair? By tying it in a knot.

I've always allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

I guess that I was wrong. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

I'll be sure to rule this situation correctly for the next forty years.

You are mis-reading the rule.

It's NOT:
the following may be used:
a. rubber
b. cloth
c. elastic bands

It's "a band made of rubber or cloth or elastic may be used ...", or "A rubber band, a cloth band or an elastic band may be used ..."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You are mis-reading the rule. It's NOT: the following may be used: a. rubber b. cloth c. elastic bands. It's "a band made of rubber or cloth or elastic may be used ...", or "A rubber band, a cloth band or an elastic band may be used ..."

I actually thought about that (for the first time in forty years) before my recent post.

Makes sense. Thanks bob jenkins.

Nitpicking here. Prewrap used as a hair control device is not in the form of a band, but is tied in a knot. So would it be legal as a headband, but not legal as a hair control device? (Note: The recent interpretation is regarding prewrap used as a headband)

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Tony Orlando and Dawn, 1973)

SITUATION 2: A1 is wearing a ribbon to control her hair. RULING: Illegal. Ribbons are considered decorations and the athlete should not be allowed to enter the contest while wearing a ribbon in the hair. (3-5-4e)

3-5-D: Rubber, cloth or elastic bands may be used to control hair.

I've been screwing this up for forty years. Ribbons are made of cloth. Cloth is a legal material for hair control devices. How does one use a cloth ribbon to control hair? By tying it in a knot.

I've always allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

I guess that I was wrong. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

I'll be sure to rule this situation correctly for the next forty years.

This ribbon interpretation is one of the dumbest I’ve seen. A scrunchy is legal but ribbon is a decoration? Give me a break

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

This ribbon interpretation is one of the dumbest I’ve seen. A scrunchy is legal but ribbon is a decoration? Give me a break

Before this recent interpretation, I allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

But I never allowed these (images below) because these ribbons are most certainly worn for decorative purposes, not for the sole purpose of controlling hair.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Before this recent interpretation, I allowed cloth ribbons tied in a simple knot, or simple bow (as used to tie one's shoes) to be used to control hair.

Now we can't allow a simple functional cloth ribbon/bow like this:

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does anybody at the NFHS read these before publishing? Shouldn't they have an editor? Wait ... I'm being told ... Who ... Theresia Wynns ... Never mind.

SITUATION 9: A1, while dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the midcourt line, has the ball strike the midcourt line and as the ball comes up from the dribble, A1 touches the ball and continues to dribble. RULING: Backcourt violation. A1 may not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt, before it went to the backcourt. (9-9-1)

In ancient times the midcourt (twenty-eight foot) line separated the midcourt from the forecourt, and among other things, was used to allow a new five second closely guarded count when the dribbler crossed the midcourt line moving forward.

Doesn't anybody at the NFHS read their own stuff?

2018-19 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
Officiating Professionalism And Use Of Proper Terminology
Division Line (Not Center, Mid-Court, or Time Line)

Silly monkeys (In Memoriam, Jurassic Referee).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

At the risk of being pedantic (and beating a dead horse), does no one who knows proper terminology review these interps?

Also, "at halftime" implies that the first half is over.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. So it must be a dead ball intentional contact technical foul.

If A1, A2, and A3 were passing the ball, as is mentioned in the interp, that implies the ball was live. "At halftime" probably means as the clock is winding down to end the half and A1 is holding for the last shot (or just holding). Instead of "At halftime", it would have been better to say "Near the end of the 2nd quarter".

As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If A1, A2, and A3 were passing the ball, as is mentioned in the interp, that implies the ball was live. "At halftime" probably means as the clock is winding down to end the half and A1 is holding for the last shot (or just holding). Instead of "At halftime", it would have been better to say "Near the end of the 2nd quarter".

As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.

Maybe A1, A2, A3 are the officials.

And, while we all knew what they meant, it *is* the phrase "at halftime" that should not be in this published interp.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As for their terminology, a "personal foul" is fine. That is what it is. Not being further qualified implies that it is just a personal foul that isn't intentional or flagrant. The correction is that a personal foul was not enough, it should have been an intentional foul (also personal in nature but qualified). Not sure what is wrong there.

It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."

True, but personal was not incorrect. The point was they want it to be intentional and that comes across clearly.

[BillyMac]

With apologies to Taylor Swift (Shake It Off, 2014).

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... we all knew what they meant ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point was they want it to be intentional and that comes across clearly.

Agree. Clear as a bell.

But the interpretation still could have been better worded considering that it was going to be published for tens of thousands to read.

Many of these interpretations read like they were written in pencil on Post-It Notes for only a few people to read.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It would have been more accurate to say "a common foul."

Isn't proper terminology a POE for the NFHS?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk