2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2008-09 NFHS Points Of Emphasis
Hand-checking. Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball. Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person using illegal hands/tactics. Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player:
1) Continuously places a hand on the opposing player – it is a foul.
2) Places both hands on a player – it is a foul.
3) Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent – it is a foul.

2010-11 NFHS Points Of Emphasis
Hand checking is a foul and is not incidental contact.
Defensive players shall not have hand(s) on the offensive player.
When a player has a hand on, two hands on or jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a foul.

2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
New 10-6-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.
Rationale: Rather than continuing to make hand-checking a point of emphasis year after year, simply add a brand new rule that requires a personal foul be called ANY TIME this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball outside of the lane area. The NFHS game needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.

As the bald old geezer (H.S., Class of 1969) and still "old school".

From the 2010-11 NFHS Points of Emphasis: "Hand checking is a foul and is not incidental contact." That is how it was called when I playing JrHS (1963-64 and 1964-65; and is in my 1963-64 NBC Rules Book. One did not Hand Check in practice unless one wanted to run laps; Hand Checking was considered "lazy defense". Ironically, NAGWS Basketball Rules, the Rules Set for AIAW Basketball before the NCAA took over women's college basketball in 1983-84, specifically allowed Hand Checking, by Rule, because NAGWS Basketball Rules were a mashup of NBC and FIBA Rules, and FIBA allowed Hand Checking.

Time for my pre-dinner nap. I hope that everyone is having a great Summer.

MTD, Sr.

[ilyazhito]

Curious. No modern rule set allows hand checking.

Back to the topic of hand checking, some boards in my area are stricter than others, but I have noticed that it is consistently called. Two hands? We call it. Repeated hot stove touches? I call it. Re-route? If I see it, I call it.

[JRutledge]

I agree with the basic philosophy that handchecking is not incidental contact. But the problem is that many cannot identify what it is much of the time. Again we have people that think simply touching another player is just that. But the rule uses the word "placing" which to me is a much more active behavior than if someone comes to you and your hand touches them. This is why we get paid the big bucks. We have to decide if the behavior is enough to warrant a foul. And if I put my arm out and you blow right by me, do we need a foul there? So there is a little art to this when it often is sold as a science.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with the basic philosophy that handchecking is not incidental contact. But the problem is that many cannot identify what it is much of the time. Again we have people that think simply touching another player is just that. But the rule uses the word "placing" which to me is a much more active behavior than if someone comes to you and your hand touches them. This is why we get paid the big bucks. We have to decide if the behavior is enough to warrant a foul. And if I put my arm out and you blow right by me, do we need a foul there? So there is a little art to this when it often is sold as a science.

Peace

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

Who is trying to get rid of what exactly? I ask because I hear this but I consistently call way more handchecks (partially the philosophy of college officiating as well). So I call them a lot, but I also use some common sense. Not every touch needs to be called when the player is moving and nothing happens. Also, RSBQ is my standard as well and the one the state I work in uses as well if we have a determining factor. This has been stated in our literature multiple times.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who is trying to get rid of what exactly? I ask because I hear this but I consistently call way more handchecks (partially the philosophy of college officiating as well). So I call them a lot, but I also use some common sense. Not every touch needs to be called when the player is moving and nothing happens. Also, RSBQ is my standard as well and the one the state I work in uses as well if we have a determining factor. This has been stated in our literature multiple times.

Peace

I also called way more hand-checks than other HS officials. And it was b/c of my college training. Even at the JuCo level, there was such an obvious difference from what was routinely allowed at the HS level. Overall, college coaches and players know they can't put their hands and other body parts all over the ballhandlers. College players are coached to move their feet and to beat the offensive player to the spot they're trying to get to. When I had to call illegal contact to the ballhandler in college game it was often quite obvious b/c it would stand out from what defenders were usually doing.

[ilyazhito]

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

Completely agree. And at the HS level, absent taking away postseason assignments there really is not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

... not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

Hey. I'm one of those old guys, but I (and my interpreter, and my assigner (also old)) subscribe to 10-7-12 as written, while still using 4-27 for almost all other types of fouls, while also knowing that single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand is legal. However, I will admit that I will occasionally give a, "Hands off", warning early in the game before calling my first 10-7-12 handchecking "touch" foul. Old habits die hard.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hey. I'm one of those old guys, but I (and my interpreter, and my assigner (also old)) subscribe to 10-7-12 as written, while still using 4-27 for almost all other types of fouls, while also knowing that single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand is legal. However, I will admit that I will occasionally give a, "Hands off", warning early in the game before calling my first 10-7-12 handchecking "touch" foul. Old habits die hard.

Talking players out of handchecks early in the game is supported by all my college supervisors. But it better be followed up with a whistle if not heeded. At the HS level too often those "warnings" don't get listened to by defenders yet the same officials who give those warnings won't blow the whistle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Completely agree. And at the HS level, absent taking away postseason assignments there really is not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

How many of our games are reviewed by the state or association? I doubt there are many games reviewed independently to know if we are doing things correct. Unless you have someone come out and they see you are not doing things a certain way. I think that is a stretch.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How many of our games are reviewed by the state or association? I doubt there are many games reviewed independently to know if we are doing things correct. Unless you have someone come out and they see you are not doing things a certain way. I think that is a stretch.



Peace

That's why I'm going to be performing that duty for my association this season. I'll go to games and I'll also watch whatever I can find online.

But I will not be trying to advise veteran officials things I may have done differently. But I will openly give advice or "things to think about" to newer and younger officials. And I will pass on my favorable impressions to my commissioner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Curious. No modern rule set allows hand checking.

Back to the topic of hand checking, some boards in my area are stricter than others, but I have noticed that it is consistently called. Two hands? We call it. Repeated hot stove touches? I call it. Re-route? If I see it, I call it.

From what I hear, it is not consistently adjudicated in the Catholic League.