Independent Clauses ...
 

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.

I haven't read through all 9 pages of the thread, so I apologize if it's been addressed. And I know that the new interps haven't been released yet. Having said all that. . .

To me, this sounds like after a backcourt violation, the ball will be put in play at the spot closest to where the violation occurred, rather than one of the 4 pre-determined spots. The violation is committed by the offense (not the defense) in the offensive team's backcourt (not the frontcourt).

However, the ball is being put in play in the offensive team's frontcourt. So in NCAA-M, we put the ball in play at one of the 4 spots. But the way the FED rule is written, it looks me to like we're going to the spot closest to wherever the violation occurs.

Think I'm reading this correctly?

I think you're reading it correctly, but my guess is that we'll end up doing what NCAA-M does, either by the actual wording of the rule when it is published or by interpretation and eventually, by rule.

A better wording would be that one of the 4 spots is used when there is a non-OOB violation occurs such that the throwin will be in the frontcourt of the team being awarded the ball.

FWIW, in NCAAW, we'd go the the spot nearest the violation, not one of the 4 designated spots. So, either might be right for FED.

We do not have clarification on what the rule ultimately will be. Even the NCAA Men's rule had some changes over the last few years when it was first implemented. It appears that we will always put the ball at the 4 spots for any regular violation or regular foul if the offense has the ball in their FC. But they did not address the out-of-bounds violations that NCAA Men's does not use those 4 spots but uses the spot the ball was declared out of bounds. So there are a lot of questions as to what the rule will be. We just know they made a change, but do not know all the details. Because in order to take on the NCAA rule, they would have to change multiple situations to make that clear. Like even what do we do with technical fouls for example. All things are going to need to be clarified and other rules will have to be changed or altered to fit this rule cogently.

Peace

Yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen.

Enquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

Great point. I like how Scrapper1 critically thinks.

Hopefully the NFHS will clarify all the many questions broached in this thread with more precise rule language and interpretations before the local fall meetings take place.

My local interpreter is often reluctant to take "deep dive" and "rabbit hole" type questions, sometimes leaving the membership with inconsistent and confusing interpretations.

Well in this case if they don't they will cause a lot of inconsistency all over the place. So I hope thought went into this before the change. Like speaking to the NCAA about what they did when creating this rule. We can only hope at this point.

Peace

Assuming this will also apply to the offensive team turning it over in their backcourt, but given NFHS you never know.

There has not been a pre-season bulletin published yet, so how are you'all assuming these changes?

No assumptions. They were announced last week: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/free-t...rules-changes/

That seems like a victory of optimism over experience.

I have also learned until the information comes out, we do not know what was ultimately intended. They obviously took a college rule, but the real question is did they read what they were adopting.

Peace

Thanks!

Mandatory Pre-Season Rules Meeting ...
 

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.