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.