2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

So now NCAA-M is the only level that, inexplicably, still is not using quarters and retaining the 1-and-1.



Standardized throw-in spots are whatever. Coaches want to be able to draw plays from the consistent spots. Not a big deal.



The 7-6-6 change is just common sense and brings the written rule in line with how it was already handled. NCAA-M did the same thing last year.



The black undershirt change is a good one. Wish they had taken it a step further and gotten rid of ALL undershirt color restrictions.



The 9-3-3 change just brings the rule in line with NCAA. No one ever enforced the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" verbiage.



Overall, a good year of changes for FED. Granted, I'm sure they will create confusion when they actually put the changes into the rule book, as they seem to do every year.

I like the 20-minute halves. Never understood the obsession or fascination with quarters.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I like the 20-minute halves. Never understood the obsession or fascination with quarters.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I mainly want it to be able to reset fouls every quarter like NCAA-W and NBA. Granted, I guess they could do that with halves (or eliminate 1-and-1 but keep double bonus on 10th), but it would be a little messier.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The black undershirt change is a good one. Wish they had taken it a step further and gotten rid of ALL undershirt color restrictions.

Disagree. I've officiated preseason jamboree-type scrimmages with multiple teams wearing reversible jerseys that reverse them from game to game. But players usually only bring one color undershirt to these scrimmages, so our local guys never enforce undershirt rules in scrimmages (after all, they're only scrimmages) but do remind coaches of these rules for when the season officially begins.

While officiating such scrimmages, with multiple color undershirts on both teams, I always notice how ever so slightly harder it is to identity players, especially in bang bang plays where the ball suddenly deflects out of bounds from a scrum of players, or when a swarm of players are elbowing each other for a rebound.

Regarding the change allowing visitor black, while I always prefer "Fashion Police" issues to change from complex to simpler, I don't mind this change because most of our local officials already allowed black for purple and for dark blue.

Ever try to go down to your local Walmart and buy a purple T-shirt?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. I've officiated preseason jamboree-type scrimmages with multiple teams wearing reversible jerseys that reverse them from game to game. But players usually only bring one color undershirt to these scrimmages, so our local guys never enforce undershirt rules in scrimmages (after all, they're only scrimmages) but do remind coaches of these rules for when the season officially begins.

While officiating such scrimmages, with multiple color undershirts on both teams, I always notice how ever so slightly harder it is to identity players, especially in bang bang plays where the ball suddenly deflects out of bounds from a scrum of players, or when a swarm of players are elbowing each other for a rebound.

Regarding the change to visitor black, while I always prefer "Fashion Police" issues to change from complex to simpler, I don't mind this change because most of our local officials already allowed black for purple and for dark blue.

Ever try to go down to your local Walmart and buy a purple T-shirt?

I've officiated countless "offseason" events where the undershirt rule is not enforced and never have I had an issue with identifying players nor have I heard one of my colleagues say they had trouble identifying players.

To each his own, I guess.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I've officiated countless "offseason" events where the undershirt rule is not enforced and never have I had an issue with identifying players nor have I heard one of my colleagues say they had trouble identifying players.

Had a game last year where I wished (for only a half a second) that the NFHS had color rules for shoes and socks. A ball deflected out of bounds near the sideline off of one of the feet of two players standing next to each other. I clearly identified the correct foot (one of four possibilities) but must have erred following the foot up the leg to the jersey, as I was politely told by a fan closer than me.

[SC Official]

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. NCAA-M had to clarify a few years ago that the throw-in spot is still where the ball went out of bounds and calling a timeout doesn't "buy" you the closest of the four spots (so if the ball goes out in the corner, the throw-in will be there even if a timeout is called).

[JRutledge]

• Rule 4-8-1 eliminates the one-and-one scenario and sets new foul limits each quarter for awarding the bonus free throw. Fouls

I think this change was for change sake. I really do not see this changing how the game is played for the most part. I think this was a college rule that people have been begging for and they finally gave in. I see almost no situation where this reduces fouls or reduces many FT opportunities. We get to 10 fouls a lot of times in games, so why are we now acting like this changes anything?

• The throw-in procedure for front-court violations was simplified in Rules 7-5-2 through 7-5-5.

This is a great rules change because it eliminates the debate of where the ball goes in almost every situation. Now, they did not seem to make clear if this was a difference for out of bounds situations. Sounds like it is a similar change to the college rule, but this explanation does not solve that issue.

• Rule 2-1-3 establishes the official placement of a shot clock operator at the scorer’s table for those states utilizing the shot clock.

OK, effects almost none of us.

• Rule 3-4-5 clarifies that multiple styles of uniform bottoms may be worn by teammates, but they must all be like-colored and adhere to uniform rules outlined in Rule 3-6-2 regarding logos and trademarks.

Pretty much the rule before.

• Rule 3-5-6 addresses undershirts and allows teams to wear a single solid color or solid black for visiting teams with dark jerseys. This provides an opportunity for schools with hard-to-find colors to have all players wear a black undershirt.

This is a great change, because there were schools that had colors like orange or yellow or purple and they had a hard time matching the color with multiple players. Why not just allow black to be worn as black is one of the easiest colors to find.

• Rule 9-3-3 was amended to allow a player to step out of bounds and return to the court if the player gains no advantage. A player is penalized only if, after returning inbounds, the player is the first to touch the ball or avoids a violation.

Again a college rule that is great. This rarely happened anyway, but it needed to be based on what they were doing. If they did not get the ball, why trouble, trouble and stop the game? Great change and glad it took place finally. The rule at the NCAA Men's level was more reasonable.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

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. . .

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

No one ever enforced the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" verbiage.

Never called it myself, but few years ago (maybe it was a few decades ago) I had an offensive player run out of bounds around a screen, and he almost ran me over as the lead official. It surprised me, and I let it go, but vowed to call the violation the next time he did it. After a switch after a foul, my partner was now the lead on the same endline and made the call without me telling him anything about the situation.

Over forty-plus years, I've called a few violations for players who step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation.

Called a foul on a player (not her fifth foul) who's body language showed that she was upset with the official who made the foul call and then ran off the court (not waiting for a substitute) straight into the locker room. After checking with the coach that it was for an unauthorized reason (not a bathroom break, injury, etc.) we charged her with the technical foul. Seen this called only once in forty-plus years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

So now NCAA-M is the only level that, inexplicably, still is not using quarters and retaining the 1-and-1.

Until you find a way to not lose money, then that will not change.

And as Raymond said, I do not get the fascination with quarters. I wish the NF would go to Quarters. A better flow if you ask me with halves.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

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.

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?

For years we had to explain to coaches how "that's a football rule, not a basketball rule." Are they now going to lord it over us that they've been right all along?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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?

For years we had to explain to coaches how "that's a football rule, not a basketball rule." Are they now going to lord it over us that they've been right all along?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

Disagree.

There are lots of "or"s in this new rule, thus lots of independent clauses.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.Disagree.

There are lots of "or"s in this new rule, thus lots of independent clauses.

Raymond's post (that I hadn't yet read) has me re-thinking my post.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Here is the NCAA Men's verbiage, which accounts for "own volition" and momentum: Rule 9 Section 3. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1. 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. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after returning to the playing court. b. 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.

Thanks Raymond.

I wonder if the NFHS is trying to duplicate the NCAA rule? If so, it needs to do better job with the new NFHS rule language.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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?

For years we had to explain to coaches how "that's a football rule, not a basketball rule." Are they now going to lord it over us that they've been right all along?

Here is the NCAA Men's verbiage, which accounts for "own volition" and momentum:

Rule 9 Section 3. Player Out of Bounds
Art. 1. 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. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after returning
to the playing court.

b. 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.