2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless the NF comes out with multiple examples like they did with the hair adornments ...

The NFHS certainly can't allow the new shorts rule language to "stand alone" as it now exists.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The NFHS certainly can't allow the new shorts rule language to "stand alone" as it now exists.

They could. Maybe they are giving cover to those that want to make this an issue? Who knows. I think the NF has often done things that clearly are not with the thought process of everyone and situation. So why would this be any different?

Peace

[Raymond]

I already know, without having the discussion, my commissioner will not care what color shorts are being worn.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I already know, without having the discussion, my commissioner will not care what color shorts are being worn.

The NFHS, our state association (CIAC), IAABO (co-interpreters), our IAABO State Board (interpreter), and our IAABO local board (interpreter and assignment commissioner), seldom, if ever, differ on any rules, or rule interpretations.

We're consistently almost always all on the same page.

We may not be sheep, but we're certainly not rebels.

This may be a big exception.

I seriously doubt that this rule will be enforced the same way from the national level down to my local high schools, as well as between our high school levels (varsity, junior varsity, freshman), and I can almost guarantee that this rule will not be expected to be enforced by my local interpreter and local assignment commissioner in my local middle school games (where we already allow illegal numbers).

[JRutledge]

Sounds like too many hands in the pot. We have basically one voice which is refreshing.

Peace

[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

[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.

[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 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 JRutledge

Sounds like too many hands in the pot. We have basically one voice which is refreshing.

Yeah, I see your point, definitely a lot of irons in the fire, seems convoluted, but it really isn't.

The three levels of IAABO (international, state, local) are always 100% on the same page with two (spring and fall) international meetings annually that are well attended by state and local interpreters (usually paid for with our local annual dues).

IAABO International is "in bed" with the NFHS, having a permanent seat the annual NFHS rules committee meeting.

Our state association (CIAC) is a "kissing cousin" of the NFHS.

Our state association depends greatly on state and local IAABO interpreters for all of it's rule and interpretation advice (our state association has an officials only branch), seldom getting into any rule and interpretation debate, leaving that stuff to the "pros" (we're whatcha call rule experts).

[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).

[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.