Rule Change Proposals

[Camron Rust]

As the SRI for Oregon, I've made the following rule change proposals. Let me know what you think.

Proposal on undershirt colors
Change Type: Rule
Sport: Basketball
Rule: 3-5-6

Suggested Change:
ART. 6 . . . Undershirts must be white, black, beige, or a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey and must be hemmed and not have frayed or ragged edges. If the undershirt has sleeves, they must be the same length. Only one visible logo is permitted. See 3-6 for logo requirements.

(optional variation): Undershirts, if worn, must be the same for all team members but need not match the wristbands, arm sleeves, and headbands).

Rationale:
We have two different color standards for accessories....one of headbands, arm sleeves, and wrist bands and another for undershirts. In particular, arm sleeves can can extend up to the arm pits. If such an item can be white/black/beige regardless of the jersey color, it seems reasonable to allow undershirts to also be white/black/beige.
Making this change would make it such that all accessories have the same color restrictions, simplifying the issue.

A variation of this could allow the undershirts to be either treated as an accessory, matching the headbands/wristbands OR matching the jersey color independent of the color of the wristbands/headbands.

Proposal on establishing team control while airborne and landing in the backcourt
Change Type: Editorial
Sport: Basketball
Rule: 9-9-3:

Suggested Change:

A player from a team that does not have team control During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.



Rationale:
The rule, as written, creates a few cases that lead to violations that are not within the spirit of the game. For example, if the ball is tipped on a throwin prior to a player securing control, the throw-in ends and the player subsequently catching the ball is at risk of committing a backcourt violation. Also, after a shot when there is no team control, a long rebound may put a player at risk of committing a backcourt violation in an effort to secure control of the ball.

This change allows a player to always establish team control without immediate risk of committing a backcourt violation. The rule, in a past version, allowed for something like this but the current wording makes these actions a violation.


Proposal on penalty for delaying the return to inbounds on a throwin
Change Type: Rule
Sport: Basketball
Rule: 10-4-2

Suggested Change:
Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
Add:
Rule 9-3-4: A player must not delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

Rationale:
When a player delays returning inbounds after executing a throw-in, the penalty of a technical foul is too severe. Several years ago, the penalty for leaving the court was a technical foul and was changed to be a violation. These two situations are essentially the same and should have the same penalty. Officials are hesitant to call a technical foul here due to the severity of the penalty not matching the nature of the infraction. Changing this to a violation would be better for consistency and for the game.



Proposal on Team Control Definition
Change Type: Editorial
Sport: Basketball
Rule: 4-12-2

Suggested Change:
DELETE: d. When a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.


Rationale:
The change of the definition of team control to include throw-ins has caused no end of confusion with regards to other rules that depend on team control such as backcourt violations. As State Rules Interpreter, I've repeatedly had to explain that team control on a throw in is only for fouls, not for any other purpose. The NFHS also has recently published articles to that same effect. I believe the entire issue could be solved in a much more elegant manner.

Instead of having the definition of team control include throw-ins, it would be much less complicated to return to the prior definition of team control and then define a team control foul to include the time during a throw-in (it already does) in the same way a player control foul includes an airborne shooter. The rules and cases about team control could return to what they were prior to having a throw-in be part of team control while keeping the same result....no team control on a throw-in until a player inbounds establishes player control but no FTs for a foul committed by the throwin team either. This keeps from having all the other rules that depend on team/player control from having a bunch a confusing caveats about only being valid after the ball has been controlled inbounds.

[SC Official]

Well written.

I’d rather get rid of the seatbelt rule than have any of those changes, however.

[ilyazhito]

Why not push for both sets of rule changes?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Well written.

I’d rather get rid of the seatbelt rule than have any of those changes, however.

Just for counterbalance, and because you've flogged this horse several times over the past couple of days -- I'm in favor of keeping the seatbelt rule.

[BillyMac]

Undershirts.

Do what you will with other "equipment" colors, but keep the undershirt rule the same as it currently is.

While the present undershirt rule is the strictest of all fashion rules (only two choices: white, or jersey color), it's also the simplest for everyone (officials, coaches, players, parents who purchase undershirts) to understand, and the simplest to adjudicate.

When I'm watching for rebounding action contact, I don't want opponents to have the same color undershirts, and I want undershirts (if worn) to match the jerseys. I have various undershirt colors in scrimmages every year. They can be slightly distracting. I don't want that in real games.

Rules that restrict equipment colors benefit officials by allowing them to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action.

Glad the NFHS got rid of the "school color" option a few years ago.

[BillyMac]

Delaying the return to inbounds on a throwin.

I twice offered this to the NFHS as a formal proposal (with the exact same rationale), this past year it made it's way all the way to the rules committee for final consideration. Didn't make it past committee. Dead end. Maybe if we just keep hammering away. Hopefully third time will be the charm. Good luck.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While the present undershirt rule is the strictest of all fashion rules (only two choices: white, or jersey color)...

Did I miss something somewhere?? I thought there was no choice - the only option was “similar to the jersey color”. If a kid has a black jersey, white ain’t gonna cut it in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by WhistlesAndStripes

Did I miss something somewhere?? I thought there was no choice - the only option was “similar to the jersey color”. If a kid has a black jersey, white ain’t gonna cut it in my book.

Two choices as the kid is packing his bag for the game, or preparing to dress for the game: White undershirt for a home game. Jersey color undershirt for a road game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I’d rather get rid of the seatbelt rule than have any of those changes, however.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm in favor of keeping the seatbelt rule.

In theory, I like the "seatbelt rule". My problem with the rule is when head coaches have to be "reminded" to not stand and coach. It adds an extra layer of possible negative interaction between the officials and the head coach, a relationship that has already been "strained". I only favor getting rid of the "seatbelt rule" because it would also get rid of this "double barreled" negative interaction.

Give the opponents two free throws, add the technical foul to the coaches total, and play on, he's been punished enough.

[Nevadaref]

All of Camron’s rule change proposals make sense, which means that the NFHS won’t adopt any of them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

All of Camron’s rule change proposals make sense, which means that the NFHS won’t adopt any of them.

My nomination for "Post O' The Week".

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

All of Camron’s rule change proposals make sense, which means that the NFHS won’t adopt any of them.

Is there a law that says that the NFHS shall only adopt nonsensical rules proposals ?