The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced. (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/106011-2023-2024-rules-changes-announced.html)

JRutledge Thu May 18, 2023 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050918)
I'm sure that that's true for your two states.

From your posts in this thread it appears that such multicolored shorts just don't occur in your games, and/or your state associations (or officials organizations, or individual officials), in the past, have redundantly allowed you to be tolerant to allow kids to play.
You seem to take things so literally here, that it can be unnerving at times. For one never said there were no multi-color pants like one player wearing all-black pants and another player wearing all-white. That is not something I see. If the school colors are green, I might see one kid that has mostly green and white and another player might have mostly white with green trim or highlights on the pants. So the colors are "like" but they are not the same.

Before we would not have batted an eye and in this current rule we would not bat an eye either. Unless they say that mostly white pant has to involve a different style that is mostly white, then we are not doing something different. Or let us say that a visiting team has mostly green as their school color but they have a mostly grey jersey and pants style for that level, and a kid moving up has green and white. I am probably not changing what we are doing. For you, this seems to be a struggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050918)
But it's as big country, and the NFHS has a wide umbrella.
Honestly I do not care what they do all over the country. I do not have to answer to states that I never work in or how they interpret the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050918)
If indeed "like color" means the same color, or a similar color, we will have at least three, or four, teams in our local area of about seventy schools that will have a "real" varsity problem with the new rule.
It does not say that, so I am not going to start assuming that is what they mean. Again they might clearly state this issue in the PowerPoint and in some case plays to address this change. When they do I will worry about it, but again I feel this is really much to do about nothing.

Peace

BillyMac Thu May 18, 2023 10:26am
Odd Language ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050921)
If the school colors are green, I might see one kid that has mostly green and white and another player might have mostly white with green trim or highlights on the pants. So the colors are "like" but they are not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050921)
Again they might clearly state this issue in the PowerPoint and in some case plays to address this change. When they do I will worry about it, but again I feel this is really much to do about nothing.
Agree. "Like color" is very odd rule language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050911)
... not appearing anywhere else in the rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretations, but it has to mean something, something that has to do with colors.

JRutledge Thu May 18, 2023 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050922)
Agree. "Like color" is very odd language.
As I said, this is what they were doing already. I said I had only one case in my entire career where a team had a player were black pants when the rest of the team was white. And that player had black shorts with white trim. So was he not using "like colors" as the current situation?

Peace

BillyMac Thu May 18, 2023 10:38am
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050923)
... a team had a player wearing black pants when the rest of the team was white. And that player had black shorts with white trim. So was he not using "like colors" as the current situation?
Great question, and hard to answer without a NFHS definition of "like color".

Easier to answer if that player's black shorts didn't have any white trim?

Without a NFHS interpretation, I'm not betting anything more than five dollars on my answer.

What is the purpose and intent of this new rule?

Is it to allow officials to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action?

Or is to protect the integrity of high school basketball games, to prevent high school games from devolving into something like the "Wild West" or "circus" atmosphere often seen at weekly fourth grade recreation league practices in local elementary school gyms?

JRutledge Thu May 18, 2023 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050924)
Great question, and hard to answer without a NFHS definition of "like color".

Easier to answer if that player's black shorts didn't have any white trim?

Without a NFHS interpretation, I'm not betting anything more than five dollars on my answer.
Unless the NF comes out with multiple examples like they did with the hair adornments, I am going to do what we did before.

Peace

BillyMac Thu May 18, 2023 11:19am
Stand Alone ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050925)
Unless the NF comes out with multiple examples like they did with the hair adornments ...
The NFHS certainly can't allow the new shorts rule language to "stand alone" as it now exists.

JRutledge Thu May 18, 2023 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050926)
The NFHS certainly can't allow the new shorts rule language to "stand alone" as it now exists.
They could. Maybe they are giving cover to those that want to make this an issue? Who knows. I think the NF has often done things that clearly are not with the thought process of everyone and situation. So why would this be any different?

Peace

Raymond Thu May 18, 2023 12:36pm
I already know, without having the discussion, my commissioner will not care what color shorts are being worn.

BillyMac Thu May 18, 2023 02:07pm
All For One And One For All ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1050928)
I already know, without having the discussion, my commissioner will not care what color shorts are being worn.
The NFHS, our state association (CIAC), IAABO (co-interpreters), our IAABO State Board (interpreter), and our IAABO local board (interpreter and assignment commissioner), seldom, if ever, differ on any rules, or rule interpretations.

We're consistently almost always all on the same page.

We may not be sheep, but we're certainly not rebels.

This may be a big exception.

I seriously doubt that this rule will be enforced the same way from the national level down to my local high schools, as well as between our high school levels (varsity, junior varsity, freshman), and I can almost guarantee that this rule will not be expected to be enforced by my local interpreter and local assignment commissioner in my local middle school games (where we already allow illegal numbers).

JRutledge Thu May 18, 2023 03:45pm
Sounds like too many hands in the pot. We have basically one voice which is refreshing.

Peace

crosscountry55 Thu May 18, 2023 08:43pm
After 110 posts, one thing is for certain:

Those mandatory pre-season rules meetings this fall are not going to be the 20-minute social calls they’ve been in recent years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Camron Rust Thu May 18, 2023 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1050907)
I agree. The definition is nonsensical, because it implies that a first free throw exists for common fouls. The rule says that the bonus free throw is "the second free throw awarded for a common foul (except for a player or team-control foul) as follows:
a. Beginning with a team's seventh foul in each half, and for the eighth and ninth foul, the bonus is awarded only if the first free throw is successful.
b. Beginning with a team's tenth foul in each half, the bonus is awarded whether or not the first free throw is successful (double bonus)."

This has not been true since the 1972-73 season in NCAA basketball, and in NFHS basketball since the 1973-74 season. The bonus should be defined (per the 2023-24 rules) as "two free throws awarded for a common foul (except a player or team-control foul) starting with a team's fifth foul in each quarter".

The NCAA Men's rulebook should also change their definition of the bonus, because it also refers to "a second free throw awarded for each common foul commited by a player of a team, beginning with the seventh team foul in each half, provided that the first free throw.is successful". NCAA Men's basketball specifically makes an.exception for "player and team control fouls.that are not loose ball fouls".

I propose that the bonus be defined as "one or more free throws awarded for each common foul committed by a player of a team, starting with the 7th team.foul of each half, as follows:
a. One free throw, with a second free throw if the first is.successful, for the 7th, 8th, and 9th team fouls.
b. Two free throws, starting with the 10th team foul."
The part you're challenging is fine when you read the rule in its entirety. It is not saying there is a first FT for all common fouls. The "bonus" was the 2nd shot earned by making the first. However, the actually terminology problem is that "double" bonus was always an incorrect term. There was only ever one bonus, it just became automatic instead of earned at the 10th foul.

Now, there is no "bonus" at all. The penalty for the FTs isn't a bonus, it is just the penalty.

bob jenkins Fri May 19, 2023 06:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1050931)
Those mandatory pre-season rules meetings this fall are not going to be the 20-minute social calls they’ve been in recent years.

Most of the issues will be resolved (I suspect) once the actual rules changes are posted -- and not just a description of the change.

And, some of the changes will never be specific enough for some -- e.g., the "similar colored shorts" rule -- heck, we've used the same language to describe t-shirts, but all of a sudden it's an issue worth multiple posts when it applies to shorts. Lah me.

BillyMac Fri May 19, 2023 09:01am
Pre-Season Rules Meetings ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1050931)
Those mandatory pre-season rules meetings this fall are not going to be the 20-minute social calls they’ve been in recent years.
Yeah, I was thinking the same exact thing. My local interpreter has done something never locally done before in forty-plus years, emailed us a copy of the rule changes way before the fall meeting to prepare us for the event.

I've got some time concerns about our upcoming local meeting. Usually this meeting is 100% about rule changes, and no "business" is conducted.

However, this year, an ad hoc committee that I co-chair is scheduled to present on a non-rules issue. Our Officials Versus Cancer campaign got off to a bang fifteen years ago. Many of our local officials were enthusiastic about donating 25% of a game fee to the American Cancer Society and using a pink whistle during a designated Officials Versus Cancer week in January.

After fifteen years, that original enthusiasm has now dwindled and I've been tasked to reinvigorate that original enthusiasm. The mandatory pre-season rules meeting was chosen for the presentation because it's "mandatory", thus has the largest audience of all of our local meetings, and because it's "live", not an impersonal Zoom meeting like many of our other meetings.

My ad hoc committee was counting on a short rule change presentation by our interpreter, as has been the case in recent years.

We were, obviously, very wrong to assume that.

BillyMac Fri May 19, 2023 09:15am
Convoluted ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050930)
Sounds like too many hands in the pot. We have basically one voice which is refreshing.
Yeah, I see your point, definitely a lot of irons in the fire, seems convoluted, but it really isn't.

The three levels of IAABO (international, state, local) are always 100% on the same page with two (spring and fall) international meetings annually that are well attended by state and local interpreters (usually paid for with our local annual dues).

IAABO International is "in bed" with the NFHS, having a permanent seat the annual NFHS rules committee meeting.

Our state association (CIAC) is a "kissing cousin" of the NFHS.

Our state association depends greatly on state and local IAABO interpreters for all of it's rule and interpretation advice (our state association has an officials only branch), seldom getting into any rule and interpretation debate, leaving that stuff to the "pros" (we're whatcha call rule experts).

BillyMac Fri May 19, 2023 09:48am
Resolved ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1050933)
Most of the issues will be resolved once the actual rules changes are posted -- and not just a description of the change.
Mostly agree, but we've been "burned" by the NFHS in the past in a few cases, with the NFHS taking a few years to fully clarify some changes.

Do we really believe that all pertinent questions asked in this thread will be fully answered?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1050933)
And, some of the changes will never be specific enough for some -- e.g., the "similar colored shorts" rule -- heck, we've used the same language to describe t-shirts, but all of a sudden it's an issue worth multiple posts when it applies to shorts.
Personally, I'm perturbed because in the recent past the NFHS has made attempts to simply the “fashion” rules. References to “school color” were completely removed from the rulebook (to the surprise of some current coaches and (hate to say it) officials). Tights are allowed, and compression shorts are treated the same as any other equipment (no longer have to be the same color as the “uniform”, what ever the hell “uniform” really meant). Hair adornments are now allowed. While rules regarding undershirts were restrictive, they were very simple to understand by all.

It seems that the NFHS is now “going backwards”, instead of continuing to go from complex to simpler, it’s now going from simple to more complex by adding an additional legal color (black) to undershirts, and by seemingly restricting the color of shorts.

While I agree that rules restricting equipment colors allow officials to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action, being a “fashion police officer” is the least favorite part of my job as a basketball official. Sometimes I dread walking into a gym, while I’m always hoping for the best, I’m always preparing for the worst.

JRutledge Fri May 19, 2023 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050936)
Mostly agree, but we've been "burned" by the NFHS in the past in a few cases, with the NFHS taking a few years to fully clarify some changes.

Do we really believe that all pertinent questions asked in this thread will be fully answered?
We will know what they likely intended and we will know what they did not consider. And I doubt that will make much difference either way to most.

I would not say that we were burned by anything the NF does, they just do not do the thorough duty a lot of time to deal with the impact of their changes.

Peace

BillyMac Fri May 19, 2023 12:25pm
Thorough ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050937)
... (NFHS) just do not do the thorough duty a lot of time to deal with the impact of their changes.
Well stated.

BillyMac Fri May 19, 2023 12:45pm
Burned ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050937)
I would not say that we were burned ...
Maybe "burned" was a strong word? Probably should have said "left us hanging".

I was thinking about the throwin team control issue (only for foul purposes) that took a few years to finally clarify; the "weird" backcourt interpretation (last to touch happens at the same exact time as first to touch); and the 2014-15 change back to free throw release (that initially failed to include the timing of boxing out the free throw shooter).

Kansas Ref Fri May 19, 2023 08:02pm
"Hey ref he can't be the first to touch it!", " hay ref he's out of bounds!", "hay ref he's still out of bounds!"

Now that rules citation provided a clear and comprehensive coverage for guidance on that type of action and all of its manifestations. Maybe future revisions of my NF will include the same, hopefully.

BillyMac Sat May 20, 2023 11:23am
Independent Clauses ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050820)
9-3-3: Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court or if they left the court to avoid a violation. Rationale: Allows a player to step out of bounds if they gain no advantage and penalizes a team only if they gain an advantage by leaving the court and returning to avoid a violation or to be the first to touch the ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1050904)
I'm a little confused how this would apply for players whose momentum carries them out, and then they are able to re-establish inbounds and be the first to touch the ball. Is this no longer allowed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1050906)
This rule is for a player who steps out of bounds of his own volition (or deliberately). Players who leave due to momentum or saving a ball will still be treated the same way and are not subject to this rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050912)
Disagree. There's an "or" in this new rule, thus two independent clauses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1050909)
Here is the NCAA Men's verbiage, which accounts for "own volition" and momentum: Rule 9 Section 3 Player Out of Bounds A player who steps out of bounds under the player's own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation. A player whose momentum causes that player to go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds if that player reestablishes one foot inbounds prior to touching the ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050914)
Raymond's post has me re-thinking my post. I wonder if the NFHS is trying to duplicate the NCAA rule? If so, it needs to do a better job with the new NFHS rule language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1050941)
"Hey ref he can't be the first to touch it!" ... Now that rules citation provided a clear and comprehensive coverage for guidance on that type of action and all of its manifestations. Maybe future revisions of my NF will include the same, hopefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050936)
Do we really believe that all pertinent questions asked in this thread will be fully answered?
We've seen this NFHS rule "language" issue in the past, independent clauses (that can stand alone) with the coordinating conjunction "or" in the rule "language", making it difficult to fully understand without knowing purpose and intent.

Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they are the first player to touch the ball after returning to the court.

Establishes that a player may step out of bounds without penalty unless they left the court to avoid a violation.

Of course, we also have a dependent marker word, "unless", that can make an independent clause into a dependent clause.

Where's my high school English teacher, Mr, Baumgartner, when I need him?

Did the NFHS intend to duplicate the NCAA rule?

If so, it needs to do a better job with the new NFHS rule language.

We'll probably have to wait for the actual rule language or interpretations to see what the NFHS actually intends here.

Scrapper1 Mon May 22, 2023 08:24pm
I haven't read through all 9 pages of the thread, so I apologize if it's been addressed. And I know that the new interps haven't been released yet. Having said all that. . .

Quote:
7-5-2 thru 5: Establishes four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-feet mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when the ball is in team control in the offensive team’s frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus, or the ball becomes dead.
To me, this sounds like after a backcourt violation, the ball will be put in play at the spot closest to where the violation occurred, rather than one of the 4 pre-determined spots. The violation is committed by the offense (not the defense) in the offensive team's backcourt (not the frontcourt).

However, the ball is being put in play in the offensive team's frontcourt. So in NCAA-M, we put the ball in play at one of the 4 spots. But the way the FED rule is written, it looks me to like we're going to the spot closest to wherever the violation occurs.

Think I'm reading this correctly?

Camron Rust Tue May 23, 2023 04:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1050945)
I haven't read through all 9 pages of the thread, so I apologize if it's been addressed. And I know that the new interps haven't been released yet. Having said all that. . .



To me, this sounds like after a backcourt violation, the ball will be put in play at the spot closest to where the violation occurred, rather than one of the 4 pre-determined spots. The violation is committed by the offense (not the defense) in the offensive team's backcourt (not the frontcourt).

However, the ball is being put in play in the offensive team's frontcourt. So in NCAA-M, we put the ball in play at one of the 4 spots. But the way the FED rule is written, it looks me to like we're going to the spot closest to wherever the violation occurs.

Think I'm reading this correctly?
I think you're reading it correctly, but my guess is that we'll end up doing what NCAA-M does, either by the actual wording of the rule when it is published or by interpretation and eventually, by rule.

A better wording would be that one of the 4 spots is used when there is a non-OOB violation occurs such that the throwin will be in the frontcourt of the team being awarded the ball.

bob jenkins Tue May 23, 2023 06:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1050946)
I think you're reading it correctly, but my guess is that we'll end up doing what NCAA-M does,

FWIW, in NCAAW, we'd go the the spot nearest the violation, not one of the 4 designated spots. So, either might be right for FED.

JRutledge Tue May 23, 2023 09:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1050945)
I haven't read through all 9 pages of the thread, so I apologize if it's been addressed. And I know that the new interps haven't been released yet. Having said all that. . .



To me, this sounds like after a backcourt violation, the ball will be put in play at the spot closest to where the violation occurred, rather than one of the 4 pre-determined spots. The violation is committed by the offense (not the defense) in the offensive team's backcourt (not the frontcourt).

However, the ball is being put in play in the offensive team's frontcourt. So in NCAA-M, we put the ball in play at one of the 4 spots. But the way the FED rule is written, it looks me to like we're going to the spot closest to wherever the violation occurs.

Think I'm reading this correctly?

We do not have clarification on what the rule ultimately will be. Even the NCAA Men's rule had some changes over the last few years when it was first implemented. It appears that we will always put the ball at the 4 spots for any regular violation or regular foul if the offense has the ball in their FC. But they did not address the out-of-bounds violations that NCAA Men's does not use those 4 spots but uses the spot the ball was declared out of bounds. So there are a lot of questions as to what the rule will be. We just know they made a change, but do not know all the details. Because in order to take on the NCAA rule, they would have to change multiple situations to make that clear. Like even what do we do with technical fouls for example. All things are going to need to be clarified and other rules will have to be changed or altered to fit this rule cogently.

Peace

Scrapper1 Tue May 23, 2023 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050948)
All things are going to need to be clarified and other rules will have to be changed or altered to fit this rule cogently.
Yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen.

BillyMac Tue May 23, 2023 01:13pm
Enquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1050945)
... this sounds like after a backcourt violation, the ball will be put in play at the spot closest to where the violation occurred, rather than one of the 4 pre-determined spots. The violation is committed by the offense (not the defense) in the offensive team's backcourt (not the frontcourt). However, the ball is being put in play in the offensive team's frontcourt ...
Great point. I like how Scrapper1 critically thinks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1050931)
Those mandatory pre-season rules meetings this fall are not going to be the 20-minute social calls they’ve been in recent years.
Hopefully the NFHS will clarify all the many questions broached in this thread with more precise rule language and interpretations before the local fall meetings take place.

My local interpreter is often reluctant to take "deep dive" and "rabbit hole" type questions, sometimes leaving the membership with inconsistent and confusing interpretations.

JRutledge Tue May 23, 2023 05:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1050949)
Yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen.
Well in this case if they don't they will cause a lot of inconsistency all over the place. So I hope thought went into this before the change. Like speaking to the NCAA about what they did when creating this rule. We can only hope at this point.

Peace

JamesBCrazy Wed May 24, 2023 08:01pm
Quote:
7-5-2 thru 5: Establishes four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-feet mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when the ball is in team control in the offensive team’s frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus, or the ball becomes dead. The one exception is when the defensive team causes a ball to be out of bounds, the throw-in shall be the spot where the ball went out of bounds. Rationale: Simplifies throw-in procedure when there is team control in the frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation.
Assuming this will also apply to the offensive team turning it over in their backcourt, but given NFHS you never know.

Kansas Ref Wed May 24, 2023 10:28pm
There has not been a pre-season bulletin published yet, so how are you'all assuming these changes?

Camron Rust Thu May 25, 2023 01:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1050953)
There has not been a pre-season bulletin published yet, so how are you'all assuming these changes?
No assumptions. They were announced last week: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/free-t...rules-changes/

Scrapper1 Thu May 25, 2023 07:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050951)
Well in this case if they don't they will cause a lot of inconsistency all over the place. So I hope thought went into this before the change. Like speaking to the NCAA about what they did when creating this rule. We can only hope at this point.

Peace
That seems like a victory of optimism over experience.

JRutledge Thu May 25, 2023 10:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 1050955)
That seems like a victory of optimism over experience.
I have also learned until the information comes out, we do not know what was ultimately intended. They obviously took a college rule, but the real question is did they read what they were adopting.

Peace

Kansas Ref Tue Jun 06, 2023 12:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1050954)
No assumptions. They were announced last week: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/free-t...rules-changes/

Thanks!

BillyMac Sat Jun 10, 2023 10:27am
Mandatory Pre-Season Rules Meeting ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1050931)
Those mandatory pre-season rules meetings this fall are not going to be the 20-minute social calls they’ve been in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050934)
Yeah, I was thinking the same exact thing. My local interpreter has done something never locally done before in forty-plus years, emailed us a copy of the rule changes way before the fall meeting to prepare us for the event.
Just got an email stating that our local board mandatory pre-season rules meeting will be October 18.

Thinking about that, I just realized that not only will we be discussing the many changes, some with possibly confusing wording, in this thread, the most changes that we've seen in a single year in several years, but here in Connecticut we will also be implementing the shot clock for all varsity games next year.

This may be the longest pre-season rules meeting that we've ever had.

BillyMac Mon Oct 16, 2023 11:57am
Time Out ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1050834)
Regarding the new throw-in rules, NFHS will need to clarify whether or not the ball moves to one of the four spots if a timeout is called by either team following the ball going out of bounds.
2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 1: Team A has possession of the ball in its frontcourt when the ball is deflected out of bounds by Team B. The ball exits the court along the end line close to the right sideline. Team A is granted an inbounds at the location where the ball exited the court. While Team A is trying to inbounds the ball, Team A calls a time-out. After the time-out, the inbounds spot (a) returns to the same spot; (b) moves to the designated spot 3 feet outside of the lane along the end line. RULING: (a) Correct procedure; (b) Incorrect procedure. COMMENT: Since the ball was not on the court, the time-out did not create a “stoppage in play” that would move the inbounds spot to one of the four designated spots. Play will continue from the inbounds spot established by the deflection of the ball by Team B. (7-5-2, 7-5-3a)

BillyMac Mon Oct 16, 2023 12:40pm
Time Out The Sequel ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051341)
2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 1: Team A has possession of the ball in its frontcourt when the ball is deflected out of bounds by Team B. The ball exits the court along the end line close to the right sideline. Team A is granted an inbounds at the location where the ball exited the court. While Team A is trying to inbounds the ball, Team A calls a time-out. After the time-out, the inbounds spot (a) returns to the same spot; (b) moves to the designated spot 3 feet outside of the lane along the end line. RULING: (a) Correct procedure; (b) Incorrect procedure. COMMENT: Since the ball was not on the court, the time-out did not create a “stoppage in play” that would move the inbounds spot to one of the four designated spots. Play will continue from the inbounds spot established by the deflection of the ball by Team B. (7-5-2, 7-5-3a)
What if Team A requests and is granted a timeout immediately after the out of bounds violation, before the throwin begins?

bob jenkins Mon Oct 16, 2023 02:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051347)
What if Team A requests and is granted a timeout immediately after the out of bounds violation, before the throwin begins?
What caused the throw-in? The OOB violation. Leave the ball at the OOB spot.

BillyMac Mon Oct 16, 2023 02:09pm
It's So Simple ...
 
https://tse4.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=Api&P=0&h=180

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1051351)
What caused the throw-in? The OOB violation. Leave the ball at the OOB spot.
Yeah, thanks bob, I (as usual) over thought the play.

Are there any plays where a time out after a whistle (not simply just a time request alone) would change the inbounds spot from before the timeout to after the timeout?

I don't believe so.

The inbound spot would always be based on what caused the original whistle.

Offensive time out request alone whistle? Four new spots.

Defensive out of bounds whistle? Closest spot.

Defensive out of bounds whistle followed by a timeout request? Closest spot.

Defensive common foul no bonus whistle followed by a timeout request? Four new spots.

Inadvertent whistle? Four new spots.

Inadvertent whistle followed by a timeout request? Four new spots.

bob jenkins Tue Oct 17, 2023 09:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051352)

Are there any plays where a time out after a whistle (not simply just a time request alone) would change the inbounds spot from before the timeout to after the timeout?
Excessive TO. ;)

BillyMac Tue Oct 17, 2023 01:34pm
Full Understanding ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1051356)
Excessive TO.
I like the way you think.

Considering extreme situations is a great method of fully understanding rule language.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1