2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You seem to have a lot of stuff you stress about during dead balls.

“When the ball is dead, we must be alive”. Of course, not my quote, probably stated by hundreds of interpreters, trainers, and clinicians.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1046692

Of course, local customs certainly "trump" NFHS, or IAABO, mechanics.

When in Rome ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bottom line for me, I will do what my local interpreter, and assignment commissioner, want me to do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did the application of the rule change? No. Nothing to site. Stop being obtuse.

Peace

Actually, I believe it did change.

Before, aside from logo restrictions, there were zero rules on the shorts. One player could have worn red shorts with another wearing black and another wearing yellow...and all would have been legal. It rarely happened but it would on occasion. I've seen it and, as State Rules Interpreter, have had the question brought to my by officials that saw it one of their games and wondered what they should have done (nothing).

Now, they must at least be similar in color.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Jeff was specifically commenting about shorts, why are you posting references about jerseys?

He's pointing out that the restrictions before only applied to the jersey with no mention of the shorts. Previously, there were no restrictions on the colors for the shorts. You could have had a full rainbow of colors on a team.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“7-6-6: Allows the official administering a throw-in to the wrong team to correct the mistake before the first dead ball after the ball becomes live unless there is a change of possession. Rationale: Allows for a correction of an official's mistake in a more reasonable timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

I don't think they're intentionally restricting it to just one official even if the wording seems to suggest that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I've had many occasions where the throw-in spot was in dispute among the crew.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have not unless the throwin spot is ...

I've re-thought my answer. Dispute is a strong word, but ...

Working mostly middle school games, I often work with partners who are rookies, or who are veterans who, due to poor evaluations, are not eligible to work varsity games.

What I often see are partners who don't signal (visually or orally, preliminary or final) correctly such that I know "what happens next", possession (direction, team color, where), free throws (by whom, how many, did the ball go in the basket), switch, or not, etc. Because I'm paying attention to my primary coverage area, I'm often left guessing. In throwin spot situations this usually doesn't lead to a dispute or a debate because such partners often just don't care, except to get in, get out, and get paid.

Back pre-arthritis, when I was working all varsity games, I rarely had such problems.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, I believe it did change.

Before, aside from logo restrictions, there were zero rules on the shorts. One player could have worn red shorts with another wearing black and another wearing yellow...and all would have been legal. It rarely happened but it would on occasion. I've seen it and, as State Rules Interpreter, have had the question brought to my by officials that saw it one of their games and wondered what they should have done (nothing).

Now, they must at least be similar in color.

That is the rub, what is "like-colored"? That does not mean the same for sure. Does that mean that if I have red and white (as in the Globetrotter picture) could I have red mostly on one and some white or could on another pair we have mostly white with smaller red? I say that it really did not change much because we never nitpicked that kind of stuff and I was using the example of a JV kid coming up to play the varsity and the JV kid has the old jerseys so that they have a different style of pants, but they are the same basic colors. And usually, that JV kid was not a key player so it was almost never something you noticed outside of the warmups.

Only once in my career did a kid have a completely different color pant than the jersey that clearly did not go with the school's uniform. It was a poorer school too, so something tells me this player did not have other uniforms that fit him and he played with his own stuff. And if that happened, it would be very hard-pressed to penalize this team with anything because that took place. Never seen that since and usually, this is not much of an issue other than a lower-level player playing with a higher-level team.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is the rub, what is "like-colored"? That does not mean the same for sure. Does that mean that if I have red and white (as in the Globetrotter picture) could I have red mostly on one and some white or could on another pair we have mostly white with smaller red? I say that it really did not change much because we never nitpicked that kind of stuff and I was using the example of a JV kid coming up to play the varsity and the JV kid has the old jerseys so that they have a different style of pants, but they are the same basic colors. And usually, that JV kid was not a key player so it was almost never something you noticed outside of the warmups.

Peace

The point is that, in the past, there wasn't even anything to nitpick. There were zero rules on the short colors. One could have worn white shorts and another could have worn black. You could have had the full rainbow of colors and it would have been 100% legal, by rule.

Now, they've added "like-color" as a new restriction. What is a like color? Good question. Black is not like white. Red it not like blue. Green is not like yellow. But red/white Globetrotter stripes and another that is red or mostly red, to me, would be like. But if one player had all all/mostly red with others wearing the Globetrotter stripes, all/mostly white is no longer an option.

I've have seen some minor variation in the shorts being worn, but they're typically the same color scheme...old vs new, etc.. I guess some had issue with that (not me) and they wanted to make sure no one was preventing kids form playing as long as they were at least similar but wanted to established that it wasn't anything-goes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point is that, in the past, there wasn't even anything to nitpick. There were zero rules on the short colors. One could have worn white shorts and another could have worn black. You could have had the full rainbow of colors and it would have been 100% legal, by rule.

Now, they've added "like-color" as a new restriction. What is a like color? Good question. Black is not like white. Red it not like blue. Green is not like yellow. But red/white Globetrotter stripes and another that is red or mostly red, to me, would be like. But if one player had all all/mostly red with others wearing the Globetrotter stripes, all/mostly white is no longer an option.

I've have seen some minor variation in the shorts being worn, but they're typically the same color scheme...old vs new, etc.. I guess some had issue with that (not me) and they wanted to make sure no one was preventing kids form playing as long as they were at least similar but wanted to established that it wasn't anything-goes.

I did not see it as an issue because we did not ever have to worry about it. Because if the situation took place as I stated, no way I am penalizing a team because they could not fit a kid. Someone will have to admonish me for that. Just like none of us measured a logo. Glad they need to make that clear, but it to me is going to be applied just like it always was and that was my point. Not really something we will see officials going out of their way to prove unless they do not know any better. Because if they wanted to make it like the other rules with the sleeves or the headbands they would have used the same language. Again, a nothing burger for the most part IMO.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And time elapsed from the clock?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another great question, especially in an end of period, or end of game situation.

With my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer on adjusting the clock, or not adjusting the clock.

But as I already said, a great question.

I think this will be treated much like correctable errors, where we can fix the error for a time, but consumed time before its discovery will be a sunk cost.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think this will be treated much like correctable errors, where we can fix the error for a time, but consumed time before its discovery will be a sunk cost.

Plus remembering that any violation--held ball, foul, or granted timeout--before recognition also makes it too late to correct.

[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.