2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.
 

Rules Changes for 2023-2024

NEW Rules Announced

Peace

Another Version ...
 

Thanks JRutledge.

2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rule Changes

2-1-3 Note (New): Requires the shot clock operator to sit at the scorer’s and timer’s table, if using a shot clock. Rationale: Establishes the placement of the shot clock operator for those states utilizing the shot clock and the growing use of video boards that allow tablet control from anywhere in the gym.

3-4-5: Requires uniform bottoms on teammates to be like-colored while allowing different styles of uniform bottoms among teammates. Rationale: Clarifies that teammates must all wear like-colored uniform bottoms but may wear multiple styles while aligning language with other NFHS rules codes.

3-5-6: Allows undershirts worn under visiting team jerseys to be black or a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey. All teammates wearing undershirts must wear the same solid color. Rationale: Allows schools with hard-to-find colors to wear black under visiting team jerseys while continuing to require all team members to match.

4-8-1: Eliminates the one-and-one for common fouls beginning with the seventh team foul in the half and establishes the bonus as two free throws awarded for a common foul beginning with the team’s fifth foul in each quarter and resets the fouls at the end of each quarter. Rationale: Improves flow by providing an opportunity for teams to adjust their play by not carrying over fouls from quarters 1 and 3 to quarters 2 and 4 while significantly reducing the opportunity for correctable errors to occur. Minimizes risk of injury by eliminating the one-and-one and reducing opportunities for rough play during rebounding opportunities.

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.

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 timeframe.

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.

2023-24 Basketball Points of Emphasis

Uniforms, Equipment and Apparel
Bench Decorum
Throw-Ins – Proper Locations

So now NCAA-M is the only level that, inexplicably, still is not using quarters and retaining the 1-and-1.

Standardized throw-in spots are whatever. Coaches want to be able to draw plays from the consistent spots. Not a big deal.

The 7-6-6 change is just common sense and brings the written rule in line with how it was already handled. NCAA-M did the same thing last year.

The black undershirt change is a good one. Wish they had taken it a step further and gotten rid of ALL undershirt color restrictions.

The 9-3-3 change just brings the rule in line with NCAA. No one ever enforced the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" verbiage.

Overall, a good year of changes for FED. Granted, I'm sure they will create confusion when they actually put the changes into the rule book, as they seem to do every year.

The rest I get, but...How is that a simplification?

It's not. That's just their justification. :)

But, it's not a hard rule to nail down as an official. The change was fine in NCAA-M and NCAA-W. The only confusion has been where to put the ball on certain backcourt violations, which they have clarified in recent years (on the men's side).

No more worrying about the exact spot based of the violation/foul or ball location when a timeout is granted. If the throw is on the sideline, go to the 28 ft line, if it is on the end line, go to the 3-ft mark outside the lane line

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I like the 20-minute halves. Never understood the obsession or fascination with quarters.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi ...
 

Disagree. I've officiated preseason jamboree-type scrimmages with multiple teams wearing reversible jerseys that reverse them from game to game. But players usually only bring one color undershirt to these scrimmages, so our local guys never enforce undershirt rules in scrimmages (after all, they're only scrimmages) but do remind coaches of these rules for when the season officially begins.

While officiating such scrimmages, with multiple color undershirts on both teams, I always notice how ever so slightly harder it is to identity players, especially in bang bang plays where the ball suddenly deflects out of bounds from a scrum of players, or when a swarm of players are elbowing each other for a rebound.

Regarding the change allowing visitor black, while I always prefer "Fashion Police" issues to change from complex to simpler, I don't mind this change because most of our local officials already allowed black for purple and for dark blue.

Ever try to go down to your local Walmart and buy a purple T-shirt?

I mainly want it to be able to reset fouls every quarter like NCAA-W and NBA. Granted, I guess they could do that with halves (or eliminate 1-and-1 but keep double bonus on 10th), but it would be a little messier.

Exception ...
 

... unless the defensive team causes a ball to be out of bounds, when the throw-in shall be the spot where the ball went out of bounds.

I've officiated countless "offseason" events where the undershirt rule is not enforced and never have I had an issue with identifying players nor have I heard one of my colleagues say they had trouble identifying players.

To each his own, I guess.

Agree And Disagree ...
 

Agree that eliminating the one-and-one will reduce rebounding opportunities and rough play.

Agree that this will reduce SOME correctable errors, for example scorers not notifying officials of the change from the old bonus (one and one) to the old "double" bonus (two free throws) will be eliminated. Most of our middle schools do not show team fouls on the scoreboard.

Disagree because SOME correctable errors will double, the change from no free throws to bonus (now two free throws) will happen four times a game instead of twice a game, now four chances for the scorers to screw up and not notify officials of the change.

I believe that the correctable errors regarding these "bonus" situations will even out, no more, no less.

Still four times a game for the scorer to screw up, especially in my middle school games.

Another good thing, fewer non-shooter free throw violations.

You don't have to worry about a precise throwin spot when making the call. You only have to decide side/end, table/opposite. You are not going to be fussing around with moving the player 5-10 feet to the "right" spot or even communicating the exact spots to your partners.

To me, that does make it simpler (to administer).

The players/coaches will, in time, begin to know it and will habitually go to the right spot without being told (unless the decision of side/end is close).

Unless ...
 

... unless the defensive team causes a ball to be out of bounds, when the throw-in shall be the spot where the ball went out of bounds.

Be Careful What You Wish For, It May Be Granted ...
 

Had a game last year where I wished (for only a half a second) that the NFHS had color rules for shoes and socks. A ball deflected out of bounds near the sideline off of one of the feet of two players standing next to each other. I clearly identified the correct foot (one of four possibilities) but must have erred following the foot up the leg to the jersey, as I was politely told by a fan closer than me.

Regarding the new throw-in rules, NFHS will need to clarify whether or not the ball moves to one of the four spots if a timeout is called by either team following the ball going out of bounds. NCAA-M had to clarify a few years ago that the throw-in spot is still where the ball went out of bounds and calling a timeout doesn't "buy" you the closest of the four spots (so if the ball goes out in the corner, the throw-in will be there even if a timeout is called).

Short Shorts (The Royal Teens, 1958) …
 

Yeah, I get it, rules that restrict equipment colors benefit officials by allowing them to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action.

But we have several teams in our local area where junior varsity shorts are different colors than varsity shorts (a kind of rite of passage).

Coaches will often reward junior varsity players by inviting some of them (with their "wrong" color shorts) to sit on the varsity bench.

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

I've always been very pleased that the NFHS didn't have any color restrictions on shorts, shoes, and socks.

Quoth the raven, "Nevermore".


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOfFB5QF4iQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Leaving The Court For An Unauthorized Reason ...
 

Never called it myself, but few years ago (maybe it was a few decades ago) I had an offensive player run out of bounds around a screen, and he almost ran me over as the lead official. It surprised me, and I let it go, but vowed to call the violation the next time he did it. After a switch after a foul, my partner was now the lead on the same endline and made the call without me telling him anything about the situation.

Over forty-plus years, I've called a few violations for players who step out of bounds in an attempt to avoid a three second violation.

Called a foul on a player (not her fifth foul) who's body language showed that she was upset with the official who made the foul call and then ran off the court (not waiting for a substitute) straight into the locker room. After checking with the coach that it was for an unauthorized reason (not a bathroom break, injury, etc.) we charged her with the technical foul. Seen this called only once in forty-plus years.

Until you find a way to not lose money, then that will not change.

And as Raymond said, I do not get the fascination with quarters. I wish the NF would go to Quarters. A better flow if you ask me with halves.

Peace

There is no "unless", that's already accounted for in the rules. Don't need a rocket ship diagram for an out of bounds call. It's easy to know where that throw in spot will be.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I was going to ask about inadvertent whistles, but I see the phrase "when the ball becomes dead" is included.

Also, if we have a kicked ball during a throw in that was created by an out of bounds call. Do we stay at the same spot since the throw-in never ended?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If it is the college rule, very much simplified. You are not having to split hairs where you put the ball.

Now the only question that I do not know is if that applies to a simple out-of-bounds violation. Does it only apply to a travel or kicked ball for example? But you do not have to debate where it goes anymore or be halfway down the sideline in the corner as opposed to bringing it out to one of the spots.

Peace

Houston, We Have A Problem ...
 

Great point Raymond. Thanks. I fixed my post.

Will the rocket ship diagram still be used to determine a sideline "spot", or an endlne "spot", when a defensive team commits a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus, or the ball becomes dead?

I took Mr. Fiore's geometry class and Mr. Madden's trigonometry class over 50 years ago, but I still may remember enough to know that "nearest" (new rule language) spot may not necessarily be determined from the rocket ship diagram.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7137/7...40b397d7_m.jpg

Wouldn't a new diagram look like diagonal lines coming out of each corner at 45 degree angles, meeting somewhere near the top of the key, and then becoming the basket line?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a97da17b_m.jpg

Now I have to remember to carry a protractor in my back pocket.

Kick The Can ...
 

Great question. I like the way you think.

So is the next throw in for a kicking violation?

If so, move the new throwin to the nearest of the four spots to the kicking violation.

Basically what I see is a bunch of college rules they adopted. The only issue are they going to make some exceptions to some things that the other levels do.

Peace

That shouldn't "need" clarifying, but you're probably right. A timeout only pauses things where they were in HS basketball. You always go back to where the game was when the timeout was called with nothing being changed. But, someone will probably make it a point to question that.

I don't expect the diagram to change aside form the destination of the throw in. The wording "nearest" wording isn't any different. The original diagram is easy to judge because the FT semi-circle gives you distinct lines to use instead of eye-balling an imaginary line....and the difference is very subtle.

That said, the current college diagram appears to exclude the semi-circle and would push those to the side. See Page 72 of https://www.quickscores.com/download...l_Rulebook.pdf. (2021-22 NCAA-M book)

The Trapezoid Diagram ???
 

Agree. Maybe a couple of square feet?

NCAA Out of Bounds and the Throw-in - Ball Awarded Out of Bounds
7.3.2.B: Officials shall determine the designated spot in sub-paragraph a. above by using an imaginary line drawn from the intersection of the end line with the sideline to each lane line where it intersects with the free-throw line. If the stoppage of play occurs inside the imaginary line, the designated spot shall be the nearest point on the end line 3-feet outside the lane line. (See number 1 on court diagram below.) If the stoppage occurs outside the imaginary line, the designated spot shall be the nearest sideline at the 28-foot line. (See number 2 on court diagram below.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3f8b3b3e_m.jpg

My take on the rules changes
 

I think this change was for change sake. I really do not see this changing how the game is played for the most part. I think this was a college rule that people have been begging for and they finally gave in. I see almost no situation where this reduces fouls or reduces many FT opportunities. We get to 10 fouls a lot of times in games, so why are we now acting like this changes anything?

This is a great rules change because it eliminates the debate of where the ball goes in almost every situation. Now, they did not seem to make clear if this was a difference for out of bounds situations. Sounds like it is a similar change to the college rule, but this explanation does not solve that issue.

OK, effects almost none of us. :D

Pretty much the rule before. ;)

This is a great change, because there were schools that had colors like orange or yellow or purple and they had a hard time matching the color with multiple players. Why not just allow black to be worn as black is one of the easiest colors to find.

Again a college rule that is great. This rarely happened anyway, but it needed to be based on what they were doing. If they did not get the ball, why trouble, trouble and stop the game? Great change and glad it took place finally. The rule at the NCAA Men's level was more reasonable.

Peace

Can't find where it says it explicitly but it's pretty much assumed that we go to POI after a TO.

Well in NCAA-M (not sure about W) if a timeout is called during a live ball in the frontcourt you go to the nearest of the four spots. If it's called during a dead ball you stay at the spot where the ball would have been put in play absent the timeout (so if it went out of bounds in the corner, the throw-in will be there regardless of the timeout).

This is what I'm saying NFHS will need to clarify.

They need to clarify the out of bounds situation, but I guess that will come when they change the wording of this rule and other rules as to what to do.

I am going to assume that when a timeout takes place, that highlighted point would be a part of the application stated. And again, only applying to the FC. We would do the very same we did before in the BC. And that means the ball is not advanced to a spot either.

Peace

Reduces Fouls ...
 

There was always a chance for rebounding fouls on the front end of a one and one.

Now, with two free throws, the players just stand there on the first free throw thinking about taking their steady girl to the malt shop after the game.

Throwin Debate ...
 

Forty-plus years and I've never had a debate about this.

Closest spot to foul, violation, out of bounds, or point of interruption.

No big deal.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Plus, during a timeout, one of us always stands with the ball where we will inbound, so if the coach asks, we just point.

In the rare situation where officials need to get together during a timeout for a tête-à-tête, we leave the ball at the throwin spot.

Yeah, I know that some frown at that, but we've never had a ball stolen.

Short Colors ...
 

Really, in the past you wouldn't allow players on a team to play with two different color shorts? Citation please?

3-4-1: Team jersey color and design must adhere to the following:
a. The torso of the team jersey must be the same single solid color for all team members.
c. The torso color must be white for the home team and a contrasting dark color for the visiting team.

The Color Purple ...
 

Agree.

I figured that this was the "purple rule". I had forgotten about orange (that many of us refer to as "red"), or yellow.

Back in my middle school teaching days, I was in charge of basketball intramurals.

Players had to wear T-shirts (not provided by the school) that matched the color (T-shirts could have images, logos, lettering, etc.) of team that they were assigned to.

Sometimes we had as many as eight teams.

Some T-shirt colors were a lot easier to find than other T-shirt colors.

White, red, green, gray, black, and blue were usually easy.

Orange, yellow, and purple were often not so easy.

Sometimes we would have a dark blue team and light blue team (light blue was often easier to find than purple, yellow, or orange).

Sometimes, if low numbers allowed, we would allow players on one team to wear either yellow or orange, close enough, same part of the spectrum.

Problems...
 

Biggest problem we have are guys that think that all backcourt violations always get a throwin spot at exactly the division line, and that throwins for three second violations go to the point of interruption (sometimes a dribbler at the point, or wing, position).

Stop taking everything someone says so literally. Obviously, a rebound takes place on a miss. When they make the FT, that situation often does not exist, on a FT because of the restrictions. So again, you do not have most rebounding situations if they make the FT which was the point of my post.

Peace

Well in 27 years I have had many. Where a player wants to take it at a totally different spot than where the violation took place or the official does not give you the spot. Now that basically is over because the 4 spots are clear. And yes during timeouts coaches assume where the spot should be a lot (even in the BC). This only applies to the FC so some of that is alleviated.

Peace

Did the application of the rule change? No. Nothing to site. Stop being obtuse.

Peace

Rebounders Jockeying For Position ...
 

Rebounding "action" also took place on the front end of a one and one even if the free throw was ultimately successful.

With the old one and one rule, on the front end of a one and one, even if the free throw was ultimately successful, rebounders would still be jockeying for position.

Sure a foul would be most likely rebounding an actual miss, but fouls did occur occasionally on the front end of a one and one on free throws that may have been ultimately successful.

That's why we had to intently watch for such fouls.

Quoth the raven, "Nevermore".

Badges? We Don't Need No Stinking Badges (Blazing Saddles, 1974) ...
 

Absolutely 100% disagree.

Old rule: No color restrictions for shorts. Players on the same team can legally have multiple color shorts, one blue, another white, etc. No officials having a "Fashion Police" role in regard to the color of snorts.

New rule: Color restrictions for shorts in that players on the same team most all wear the same color shorts. It's illegal for players on the same team to have multiple color shorts, one blue, another white, etc. In regard to shorts, officials now have a "Fashion Police" role: "Coach. All your players must wear the same color shorts. Pick a color, those kids can play tonight".

I'm divided on this rule change.

While I agree that rules that restrict equipment colors benefit officials by allowing them to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action, I also always prefer "Fashion Police" issues to change from complex to simpler.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) fashion issues changed from simpler to more complex (shorts, visitor black undershirts) this coming year.

Two more fashion issues to deal with that we didn't have to deal with last year.

One (shorts) that allows us to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action, and another (visitor black undershirts) that was changed only for the convenience of teams/players/parents.

Does Not Apply ...
 

If by this you mean that you've never encountered multiple color shorts in any of your high school varsity games, then I see your point that this rule change would not apply to you.

However it does apply to my little corner of Connecticut.

New Rule says: Old Rule says: The only thing illegal before was the kind of logo you had on. I hardly see a change unless "like color" is meant to mean same color. So that means to me what we did before, we did not nitpick what they wore. And it also does not say the same solid color either.

Peace

Like Color ...
 

I believe that's what it means, "like color" means the same (or similar) color, but, of course I can be misreading it. We'll have to wait for the actual rule language or interpretations to see what the NFHS actually expects.

3-4-5: Requires uniform bottoms on teammates to be like-colored while allowing different styles of uniform bottoms among teammates. Rationale: Clarifies that teammates must all wear like-colored uniform bottoms but may wear multiple styles while aligning language with other NFHS rules codes.

In my case, the colors aren't even close. Junior varsity players wear white shorts. Varsity players on the same team wear dark shorts, for example, some teams blue, some teams red, some teams black. Or vice versa (as well as home versus road). It's when some junior varsity players also try to play in the later varsity game (without changing shorts) where we could have some problems with the new rule, if I'm reading it correctly.

Sweet Georgia Brown ...
 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/de/c4/d1/d...ball-teams.jpg

These shorts are not exactly the same color.

Some are white shorts with red stripes, while others are red shorts with white stripes.

I like the changes. Eliminating one and one simplifies foul administration (count to 5 fouls in the quarter, then shoot 2 for every common foul). Establishing 4 spots for throw-ins on common fouls before the bonus and on violations (minus out of bounds) also simplifies enforcement. I also like how throw-ins can now be corrected after the throw-in ends.

I've had many occasions where the throw-in spot was in dispute amongst the crew.

As far as the bolded statement, why can't the other officials come to the throw-in spot instead of having the administering official come to them? Your approach makes zero logical sense to me.

Jeff was specifically commenting about shorts, why are you posting references about jerseys?

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“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 timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

Lopsided Court Coverage ...
 

Sets up a lopsided coverage of the court.

During a timeout we need at least one official at the division line ready to beckon in subs, prevent subs from entering after the warning horn, and ready to address any questions from the table, or from polite coaches.

Shorts And Jerseys ...
 

Because he seemed to be confusing the new shorts rule with the old and existing jersey rule (that only cites jerseys).

In the past some officials new to our local area, questioned seeing different color (junior varsity and varsity) shorts and in varsity games, something that they might not have been exposed to in their previous local area (it is rare in a high school games), and had to be told that (at the time) there were no NFHS color restrictions on shorts.

Since my post I have discovered that JRutledge is actually questioning the language of the new shorts rule, wondering if "like color" means the same (or similar) color, a valid question that we'll both have to wait to get answered until the NFHS publishes the actual rule language and interpretations.

I'm leaning toward "like color" meaning the same (or similar) color, but with my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my house on it.

Reverse The Call ...
 

Maybe it will allow communication between officials but leave it up the administering official to actually decide to reverse the call, similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call.

"Hey partner. We may have screwed up that throwin a few seconds ago. What do you think? Should you reverse it? You were the administering official."

I've got a good question.

Back to original spot of throwin, or to the point of interruption?

I'm guessing point of interruption, but but with my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my villa in Tuscany on it.

If a head coach politely questions the nonadministering official, who is convinced into also questioning the throwin, and then stops the game to discuss with the administering official, and both officials decide that no error was made, it will definitely be point of interruption.

I would think that to also be true if the throwin was reversed - point of interruption.

I was not confused by anything. My take was specifically that the rule basically was not a change, it was simply a clarification and not even explained what "similar color" means. It did not say they had to share the same color. It would be like a player that was on the sophomore or JV team playing with the varsity and they had a white jersey but the stripe is different. We already allowed that. Or if there is white on much of the shorts, but not totally white but the other teammates are wearing all white. So are we not allowing that to take place? Again, pretty much what the rule was before IMO unless they say it is more restrictive (which interpretation).

I know you do not get this fact, but many people know rules just as good as you if not better. Or been in situations that you might not have experienced. I literally work HS basketball in two states. And one of those states the NF Headquarters is located. IJS.

Peace

It's laziness. You can see subs from the throw-in spot. If you're having a meeting with your partners, coaches questions can wait. If the table needs information, then tend to that instead of having a referee gossip session.

I wasn't confused. He clearly was talking about "shorts". He doesn't work games in Connecticutt, so he wasn't one of those officials you reference. I knew exactly what he was talking about. You probably confused some newcomers by conflating rules.

I agree. If I'm a non-administering official and I notice it, I'm fixing it.

And time elapsed from the clock?

To me, this is like saying the Referee designates the scorebook and officials scorer before the game starts or says the Referee inspects all the equipment, court, backboard, and other things. We know we do that as a crew, not just the Referee, and inspecting is not going up to each item and seeing if it is legal. We do that together and if my partner does not feel something is right, I am not saying "I'm the Referee so I can only do......" We do this together. Bad wording for what is reality, but if the non-administring officials notice something, we changing it if it is wrong. Just my opinion.

Peace

I do not think I have ever had an official at the division line for subs. At least not mechanically. Officials talk to each other all the time in my parts and it is encouraged. We can observe the subs from our location no matter on the court. And you must be talking about only 2 person, that is the only mechanic set that has officials at the division line. ;)

Peace

Time Elapsed...
 

Another great question, especially in an end of period, or end of game situation.

With my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer on adjusting the clock, or not adjusting the clock.

But as I already said, a great question.

Land Of Steady Habits ...
 

Bingo.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...67fea40c_m.jpg

No I In Team ...
 

Agree 100%. Love the word "we". We're the third team on the court.

Allowing Different Styles ...
 

Agree, it didn't say that (same), nor did it say similar color.

It said "like color" and we'll both have to wait until the NFHS publishes the actual rule language and interpretation to find out what "like color" means.

Agree that we already did allow that (if it's not illegal, it's legal). Now it's codified as "allowing different styles".

I am not waiting on anything. This is really a non-issue. Hardly ever see something different that this would even be considered. And at the lower levels in Illinois, we were told to not enforce uniform rules for specific violations of the rule like logos or size of side panels. They want them to play and look in a similar color.


Yes, and basically what we were doing before. I think this was put in because there were officials that would go nuts over a player that came from the other levels and did not perfectly match the pants of the other team. That is something I had to talk some officials off the ledge.

Peace

Opinion ...
 

Regarding the new "shorts rule", while I wouldn't call myself confused, I do have questions and maybe Raymond can express an expert opinion on such.

What does "like color" mean?

Same color, similar color (like the undershirt rule), or something entirely different?

If Raymond sees pregame layup lines in his next high school varsity game with eight players on one team with all red shorts and four players on the same team with all white shorts what will he do?

I thought that I was sure what I'd do, but JRutledge, a great rules guy worth listening to, and not one to be ignored, has me questioning myself and looking forward to waiting until the NFHS publishes the actual rule language and interpretation to find out what "like color" means.

Disputed, Debated, Or Discussed ...
 

I have not unless the throwin spot is politely questioned by a coach (who often wants a front court endline, instead of sideline, throwin) in which case the issue is briefly discussed with my partner (very rarely changed, most always discussed only for game management purposes to show the coach that we do listen to him).

Note: I myself had, or had partners who had, a brief memory lapse after a timeout regarding designated spot, or run the endline. To combat this, I will always, as the administering official, or as the nonadministering official, give the designated spot, or run the endline, signal to my partner during the timeout, and after the timeout.

Non Enforcement ...
 

Hopefully the (Connecticut) CIAC will do the same regarding this new shorts rule.

Bottom line for me, I will do what my local interpreter, and assignment commissioner, want me to do.

Tête-à-Tête ...
 

Forty-two foot important conversations indicate laziness.

Tête-à-têtes at the endline, or at the division line, or halfway in between (as dictated by local custom), are not being lazy.

Fix It ... ...
 

By sounding your whistle, discussing it with your partner, and allowing him to fix it if necessary (similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call), or by sounding your whistle and immediately reversing his "call"?

Off The Ledge ...
 

Our local interpreters had to do the same exact thing, one at least two different occasions.

Who's The Boss ???
 

Maybe what I would do?

The administering official is not necessarily the person who had the whistle that caused the throw-in, so why would I need confirmation from them?

Most officials' meetings during time-outs are unnecessary. Usually one official doesn't walk down to the other end of the court. If important enough, I'm going to the ball so I don't have to stop my conversation to tell the coach(es) where the throw-in will be-- they can know by where we are standing where the spot will be. You seem to have a lot of stuff you stress about during dead balls.

Here I Come To Save The Day (Mighty Mouse) ...
 

Good point that I didn't consider, but the administering official is the one who made the mistake, and by the new rule, the one who is allowed to correct the mistake, so that's worth, a least, a few seconds of discussion.

Note: To Raymond's point above (not necessarily the person who had the whistle that caused the throw-in), I had a rookie partner this past season who's oral communication and signal was so extremely poor after his whistle that I didn't know (I had absolutely no idea) if it was a violation, out of bounds, foul, etc. and whether I should switch, not switch, or cut bait. If I was going to be the new throwin administering official (I wasn't) I would definitely not know who to give the ball to, and any guess on my part would have a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, I wouldn't guess, I would ask.

When The Ball Is Dead, We Must Be Alive ...
 

“When the ball is dead, we must be alive”. Of course, not my quote, probably stated by hundreds of interpreters, trainers, and clinicians.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1046692

Of course, local customs certainly "trump" NFHS, or IAABO, mechanics.

When in Rome ...

Actually, I believe it did change.

Before, aside from logo restrictions, there were zero rules on the shorts. One player could have worn red shorts with another wearing black and another wearing yellow...and all would have been legal. It rarely happened but it would on occasion. I've seen it and, as State Rules Interpreter, have had the question brought to my by officials that saw it one of their games and wondered what they should have done (nothing).

Now, they must at least be similar in color.

He's pointing out that the restrictions before only applied to the jersey with no mention of the shorts. Previously, there were no restrictions on the colors for the shorts. You could have had a full rainbow of colors on a team.

I don't think they're intentionally restricting it to just one official even if the wording seems to suggest that.

Middle School Follies ...
 

I've re-thought my answer. Dispute is a strong word, but ...

Working mostly middle school games, I often work with partners who are rookies, or who are veterans who, due to poor evaluations, are not eligible to work varsity games.

What I often see are partners who don't signal (visually or orally, preliminary or final) correctly such that I know "what happens next", possession (direction, team color, where), free throws (by whom, how many, did the ball go in the basket), switch, or not, etc. Because I'm paying attention to my primary coverage area, I'm often left guessing. In throwin spot situations this usually doesn't lead to a dispute or a debate because such partners often just don't care, except to get in, get out, and get paid.

Back pre-arthritis, when I was working all varsity games, I rarely had such problems.

That is the rub, what is "like-colored"? That does not mean the same for sure. Does that mean that if I have red and white (as in the Globetrotter picture) could I have red mostly on one and some white or could on another pair we have mostly white with smaller red? I say that it really did not change much because we never nitpicked that kind of stuff and I was using the example of a JV kid coming up to play the varsity and the JV kid has the old jerseys so that they have a different style of pants, but they are the same basic colors. And usually, that JV kid was not a key player so it was almost never something you noticed outside of the warmups.

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. It was a poorer school too, so something tells me this player did not have other uniforms that fit him and he played with his own stuff. And if that happened, it would be very hard-pressed to penalize this team with anything because that took place. Never seen that since and usually, this is not much of an issue other than a lower-level player playing with a higher-level team.

Peace

The point is that, in the past, there wasn't even anything to nitpick. There were zero rules on the short colors. One could have worn white shorts and another could have worn black. You could have had the full rainbow of colors and it would have been 100% legal, by rule.

Now, they've added "like-color" as a new restriction. What is a like color? Good question. Black is not like white. Red it not like blue. Green is not like yellow. 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've have seen some minor variation in the shorts being worn, but they're typically the same color scheme...old vs new, etc.. I guess some had issue with that (not me) and they wanted to make sure no one was preventing kids form playing as long as they were at least similar but wanted to established that it wasn't anything-goes.

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. Someone will have to admonish me for that. Just like none of us measured a logo. Glad they need to make that clear, but it to me is going to be applied just like it always was and that was my point. Not really something we will see officials going out of their way to prove unless they do not know any better. Because if they wanted to make it like the other rules with the sleeves or the headbands they would have used the same language. Again, a nothing burger for the most part IMO.

Peace

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.

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.

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?

For years we had to explain to coaches how "that's a football rule, not a basketball rule." Are they now going to lord it over us that they've been right all along? :eek:

4-8-1: Eliminates the one-and-one for common fouls beginning with the seventh team foul in the half and establishes the bonus as two free throws awarded for a common foul beginning with the team’s fifth foul in each quarter and resets the fouls at the end of each quarter. Rationale: Improves flow by providing an opportunity for teams to adjust their play by not carrying over fouls from quarters 1 and 3 to quarters 2 and 4 while significantly reducing the opportunity for correctable errors to occur. Minimizes risk of injury by eliminating the one-and-one and reducing opportunities for rough play during rebounding opportunities.

There are still a few states (MN, WI, etc.) that play the game in halves. Will be interesting to see how they adopt this. Do they acquiesce to going back to quarters, or will they just capture the intent by going to a two-shot bonus at the 10th foul? Or will they thumb their nose at the federation altogether and stick with one-and-one?

On a side note, maybe the NFHS will now finally fix that dreadful definition of what a "Bonus Free Throw" is once and for all.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.