Consumed Time ...
 

Agree. Sounds rational.

How about original throwin spot, or point of interruption?

Who Wears Short Shorts ???
 

No need to worry about it in the past because, for at least the past forty years, there was absolutely no color restriction on shorts. Only those who didn't understand the rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal) had "issues". If any state associations, local officials organizations, or individual officials allowed multiple color shorts, it was a redundancy, no exception was necessary for an imaginary rule that didn't exist.

And in the past, if anyone penalized this player, or this team, they would be 100% wrong by NFHS rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal).

Agree, "like color" is very odd language, not appearing anywhere else in the rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretations, but it has to mean something, something that has to do with colors.

Same? Similar? Something else?

I can foresee some state associations making exceptions to this new rule, especially for subvarsity games. And if they don't, I can see some officials organizations making exceptions to this new rule for the middle schools that they service, as my local board already does regarding some uniform and equipment rules in middle school games, for example, illegal numbers.

Independent Clauses ...
 

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.

Too Late To Correct ...
 

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 time frame.

Agree. I was also thinking about this.

Held balls, fouls, or granted timeouts, all include dead balls.

Even an inadvertent whistle, or a whistle to pick up a loose coin on the court, or for a player to adjust their glasses.

The "change of possession" in the rule would include things like live ball steals, and no team control shot attempts.

Re-Thinking ...
 

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

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.

You can stay up night worrying about this. I will not because it rarely is an issue anyway before this wording and doubt it would be an issue after. That was ultimately my point. There is going to be a real world application to all of this that will trump the strict application that some will try to point out.

Peace

Candy Canes ...
 

I almost didn't post the Globetrotter photo, now I'm glad that I did because it appears to have generated some discussion.

There are thousands of high school basketball teams in the country.

At least one of them must be wearing striped shorts.

We have a very successful Catholic high school team in our local area that wears warmups with red and white "candy cane" striped warmup pants. Every time they come out for layup lines, I think to myself, "What a bunch of Christmas clowns". It's their tradition, they're very successful, so they keep wearing them.

The picture to me is not that relevant. I only referenced it because you posted it, but it as not a discussion point. Because I do not see those shorts as the issue. I see someone wearing red or someone wearing white if those shorts were on the same team as complying. And I bet each state will have its own interpretation anyway. If the NF does not make it clear what is illegal, then that is what the states do.

Again, I doubt this will even be an issue in my world because at the varsity level I do not see anyone stopping a JV kid from playing because the pants were a different color as the other pants but share the same basic color of their school or teammates.

Peace

Big Umbrella ...
 

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.

But it's as big country, and the NFHS has a wide umbrella.

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.

Agree. Maybe not every state, but many states.

Discussion Point ...
 

It was for Camron Rust in his thought provoking post.

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.

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.

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

Odd Language ...
 

Agree. "Like color" is very odd rule 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

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose ...
 

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?

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