2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. There's an "or" in this new rule, thus two independent clauses.

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 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 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Raymond's post has me re-thinking my post. I wonder if the NFHS is trying to duplicate the NCAA rule? If so, it needs to do a better job with the new NFHS rule language.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

"Hey ref he can't be the first to touch it!" ... 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we really believe that all pertinent questions asked in this thread will be fully answered?

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.

[Scrapper1]

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. . .

7-5-2 thru 5: Establishes four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-feet mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when the ball is in team control in the offensive team’s frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus, or the ball becomes dead.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think you're reading it correctly, but my guess is that we'll end up doing what NCAA-M does,

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All things are going to need to be clarified and other rules will have to be changed or altered to fit this rule cogently.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

... 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 ...

Great point. I like how Scrapper1 critically thinks.

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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

[JamesBCrazy]

7-5-2 thru 5: Establishes four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-feet mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when the ball is in team control in the offensive team’s frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus, or the ball becomes dead. The one exception is when the defensive team causes a ball to be out of bounds, the throw-in shall be the spot where the ball went out of bounds. Rationale: Simplifies throw-in procedure when there is team control in the frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation.

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

[Kansas Ref]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

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/

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

That seems like a victory of optimism over experience.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Thanks!

[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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.