2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[BillyMac]

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.

Agree. Sounds rational.

How about original throwin spot, or point of interruption?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 ... And if that happened, it would be very hard-pressed to penalize this team with anything because that took place.

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).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... Because if they wanted to make it like the other rules with the sleeves or the headbands they would have used the same language.

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.

[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 Raymond

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

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does that mean that if I have red and white (as in the Globetrotter picture) ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... doubt it would be an issue after.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I bet each state will have its own interpretation anyway.

Agree. Maybe not every state, but many states.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pretty sure that our CIAC will have to make some exceptions until everybody goes through a new uniform cycle (or maybe beyond).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... not a discussion point.

It was for Camron Rust in his thought provoking post.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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