2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[Kansas Ref]

"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]

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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. There's an "or" in this new rule, thus two independent clauses.

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 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

"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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[crosscountry55]

4-8-1: Eliminates the one-and-one for common fouls beginning with the seventh team foul in the half and establishes the bonus as two free throws awarded for a common foul beginning with the team’s fifth foul in each quarter and resets the fouls at the end of each quarter. Rationale: Improves flow by providing an opportunity for teams to adjust their play by not carrying over fouls from quarters 1 and 3 to quarters 2 and 4 while significantly reducing the opportunity for correctable errors to occur. Minimizes risk of injury by eliminating the one-and-one and reducing opportunities for rough play during rebounding opportunities.

There are still a few states (MN, WI, etc.) that play the game in halves. Will be interesting to see how they adopt this. Do they acquiesce to going back to quarters, or will they just capture the intent by going to a two-shot bonus at the 10th foul? Or will they thumb their nose at the federation altogether and stick with one-and-one?

On a side note, maybe the NFHS will now finally fix that dreadful definition of what a "Bonus Free Throw" is once and for all.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

4-8-1: Eliminates the one-and-one for common fouls beginning with the seventh team foul in the half and establishes the bonus as two free throws awarded for a common foul beginning with the team’s fifth foul in each quarter and resets the fouls at the end of each quarter. Rationale: Improves flow by providing an opportunity for teams to adjust their play by not carrying over fouls from quarters 1 and 3 to quarters 2 and 4 while significantly reducing the opportunity for correctable errors to occur. Minimizes risk of injury by eliminating the one-and-one and reducing opportunities for rough play during rebounding opportunities.

There are still a few states (MN, WI, etc.) that play the game in halves. Will be interesting to see how they adopt this. Do they acquiesce to going back to quarters, or will they just capture the intent by going to a two-shot bonus at the 10th foul? Or will they thumb their nose at the federation altogether and stick with one-and-one?

On a side note, maybe the NFHS will now finally fix that dreadful definition of what a "Bonus Free Throw" is once and for all.

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."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

[crosscountry55]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... (NFHS) just do not do the thorough duty a lot of time to deal with the impact of their changes.

Well stated.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.