The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/106032-comments-2023-24-rules-changes.html)

BillyMac Thu Jul 27, 2023 02:33pm
Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes ...
 
Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes

2-1-3 NOTE (NEW) — As a result of the increased use of large video boards that allow timers to utilize tablets to control the clock from anywhere in the facility and the increase in schools utilizing the shot clock, it became necessary to include language requiring the shot clock operator, if used, to sit at the scorer’s and timer’s table. Officials need to have easy access to the scorer, timer and the shot clock operator during contests.

3-4-5 — Clarifying the requirements for uniform bottoms makes it easier for coaches and athletic directors to address the individual needs of their student-athletes when ordering uniforms. Teammates must all wear like-colored uniform bottoms but may wear multiple styles. This clarification allows for an athlete to wear a skirt or pants of the same color as the athlete’s teammates without contacting the state association for a uniform accommodation.

3-5-6 — Allowing undershirts worn under visiting team jerseys to be black or the single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey will assist schools with hard to match colors easily comply with the rules. Schools can now allow teammates to wear black undershirts and avoid searching for solid shirts that match the visiting team jersey. It is important to note that all teammates wearing undershirts must wear the same solid color.

4-8-1 — Eliminating the one-and-one, shooting two free throws after a team’s fifth foul in a quarter and resetting the fouls after each quarter has the potential to provide a better flow by allowing teams that run into early foul trouble the opportunity to self-correct their style of play at the outset of both the second and fourth quarters. Second, by eliminating the one-and-one, the number of opportunities for correctable errors that result from awarding an unmerited free throw or failing to award a merited free throw are significantly reduced. Finally, the guarantee of two free throws eliminates the physical play that has often been associated with rebounding action on the first free throw.

4-36, 6-4-3, 7-5-2 thru 4, 9-1 PENALTY 3, 9-4 PENALTY, 9-5 PENALTY, 9-6 PENALTY, 9-8 PENALTY, 9-9 PENALTY, 9-12 PENALTIES 3 & 4, 9-13 PENALTY — Establishing four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-foot mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when a team gains or retains possession in its frontcourt due to a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus or any stoppage other than an out-of-bounds eliminates much of the judgment for an official about where exactly the throw-in spot should be located and allows teams to develop throw-in plays both offensively and defensively from four pre-determined locations.

7-6-6 — Allowing 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 provides an appropriate amount of time to correct a mistake. Previously, the mistake had to be corrected before the ball was put into play.

9-3-3 — Establishing 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 allows the game to continue without stoppage when the player’s actions did not create an advantage. When an advantage is gained by a player purposely leaving the court and being the first one to touch the ball or leaving the court to avoid a violation, an advantage is gained, and a violation has occurred.

BillyMac Thu Jul 27, 2023 02:52pm
Like Color ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1050872)
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 ... Again, pretty much what the rule was before IMO unless they say it is more restrictive (which interpretation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050882)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1050884)
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.
Now we know what "like color" means. And it is a rule change (NFHS but maybe not locally).

Comments: 3-4-5 — Clarifying the requirements for uniform bottoms makes it easier for coaches and athletic directors to address the individual needs of their student-athletes when ordering uniforms. Teammates must all wear like-colored uniform bottoms but may wear multiple styles. This clarification allows for an athlete to wear a skirt or pants of the same color as the athlete’s teammates without contacting the state association for a uniform accommodation.

Points of Emphasis: Uniforms: B. As has been the rule in the past, uniform bottoms do not have to match the torso of the uniform; however, with the adoption of Rule 3-4-5, uniform bottoms must be like-colored among teammates. To provide clarity, the following examples are provided:
• Teammates may wear multiple styles of uniform bottoms, which may include shorts, skirts or pants.
• The color of the uniform bottoms are not required to be the same as the uniform top; however, the bottoms must be a consistent color among teammates. The bottom style may differ for every player, but the color must be the same.
Example – A1 is wearing a white jersey and red shorts. A2 is wearing a white jersey and a red skirt. Legal, as long as the bottom is red for all five players.

Raymond Thu Jul 27, 2023 03:03pm
New throw-in spots. If there is a BC violation other than stepping on the division line, the throw-in spot is either the 28' ft line or 3ft from the lane line. Still have college officials who get that wrong.

BillyMac Thu Jul 27, 2023 03:17pm
Throw In Spots ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051068)
If there is a BC violation other than stepping on the division line, the throw-in spot is either the 28' ft line or 3ft from the lane line.
Is the throw-in team in its frontcourt or backcourt?

Establishing four throw-in spots when a team gains … possession in its frontcourt due to a violation … other than an out-of-bounds.

If the throw-in is to be in the team's frontcourt, it shall be at either the nearest 28-foot mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line along the end line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051068)
... other than stepping on the division line,
Is stepping on the division line considered an out of bounds violation, thus closest spot?

Why would stepping on the division line be any different than any other backcourt violation (offense illegally touching the ball in their backcourt but not on the division line)?

BillyMac Thu Jul 27, 2023 05:34pm
Division Line ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051069)
Why would stepping on the division line be any different than any other backcourt violation (offense illegally touching the ball in their backcourt but not on the division line)?
... Because the "new" division line is now part of the new team in possession's backcourt, not their frontcourt?

Is the throw-in team in its frontcourt or backcourt?

JRutledge Thu Jul 27, 2023 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051072)
... Because the "new" division line is now part of the new team in possession's backcourt, not their frontcourt?

Is the throw-in team in its frontcourt or backcourt?
The division line is considered by rule the BC. So if you call a violation there, then the new FC you would put the ball at the 28-foot mark. Now the NCAA made clear they wanted these plays where the line was touched, to put at the division line. Before officials would rightfully so at that level put the ball at the 28-foot mark until a clear change was made. That is what it appears Raymond is addressing.

Peace

Camron Rust Fri Jul 28, 2023 02:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051073)
The division line is considered by rule the BC. So if you call a violation there, then the new FC you would put the ball at the 28-foot mark. Now the NCAA made clear they wanted these plays where the line was touched, to put at the division line. Before officials would rightfully so at that level put the ball at the 28-foot mark until a clear change was made. That is what it appears Raymond is addressing.

Peace
While the division line is in the backcourt for the team that stepped on it, it is also in the backcourt of the team getting the ball. So, the new offensive team is still getting that ball in their own backcourt. Thus, it stays at the line.

But, that argument is only clear if they step only on the painted line itself an not over the line. If they step entirely past the line, that does put them into the other teams frontcourt. Then, if they're half stepping on the line and half into the other team's frontcourt, the rule itself would be ambiguous. You could argue either result without an interpretation.

bob jenkins Fri Jul 28, 2023 05:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051068)
New throw-in spots. If there is a BC violation other than stepping on the division line, the throw-in spot is either the 28' ft line or 3ft from the lane line. Still have college officials who get that wrong.
NCAAW is different. The throw in would be at the OOB spot nearest the violation.

Art. 2. The location of the throw-in shall be determined as follows:
a. When there is team control and the defense commits a violation of Rule
9-6 or a single personal foul in the offense's frontcourt, play will resume
with a throw-in to the offensive team at a designated spot at either the
28-foot mark or the lower defensive box mark nearest to the location of
the personal foul or violation.
b. For all other violations or personal fouls when play will resume with a
throw-in, the throw-in shall be made from the designated spot nearest to
where the violation or foul occurred.

(9-6 is "kick, first, through the basket from below")

Raymond Fri Jul 28, 2023 07:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1051075)
NCAAW is different. The throw in would be at the OOB spot nearest the violation.

Art. 2. The location of the throw-in shall be determined as follows:
a. When there is team control and the defense commits a violation of Rule
9-6 or a single personal foul in the offense's frontcourt, play will resume
with a throw-in to the offensive team at a designated spot at either the
28-foot mark or the lower defensive box mark nearest to the location of
the personal foul or violation.
b. For all other violations or personal fouls when play will resume with a
throw-in, the throw-in shall be made from the designated spot nearest to
where the violation or foul occurred.

(9-6 is "kick, first, through the basket from below")
Yep, I know (neutral observer for both Men's and Women's, so I've had to track both rule sets). I like that the NFHS is going with NCAA-Men on this one.

Raymond Fri Jul 28, 2023 07:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051073)
The division line is considered by rule the BC. So if you call a violation there, then the new FC you would put the ball at the 28-foot mark. Now the NCAA made clear they wanted these plays where the line was touched, to put at the division line. Before officials would rightfully so at that level put the ball at the 28-foot mark until a clear change was made. That is what it appears Raymond is addressing.

Peace
Yeah, I was still working when they issued that interpretation. But even afterward, I've had to correct NCAA-Men's officials about their throw-in spots in games I've observed.

JRutledge Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1051074)
While the division line is in the backcourt for the team that stepped on it, it is also in the backcourt of the team getting the ball. So, the new offensive team is still getting that ball in their own backcourt. Thus, it stays at the line.

But, that argument is only clear if they step only on the painted line itself an not over the line. If they step entirely past the line, that does put them into the other teams frontcourt. Then, if they're half stepping on the line and half into the other team's frontcourt, the rule itself would be ambiguous. You could argue either result without an interpretation.
I agree if you step over that is different than stepping on the line. I am just saying that the NCAA addressed this and had to clarify this rule and the application.

I think they might need to clarify this with either an interpretation or even a case play. But something tells me they might not do that this year. ;)

Peace

JamesBCrazy Sat Jul 29, 2023 08:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051068)
New throw-in spots. If there is a BC violation other than stepping on the division line, the throw-in spot is either the 28' ft line or 3ft from the lane line. Still have college officials who get that wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

If Team A commits a BC violation in their own FC (or precisely at the division line, which is in both teams' BC) Team B will still be throwing it in from their BC, the same as last year's rule.

Only if Team A commits a BC violation in their own BC (and not at the division line) will Team B throw it in from one of the four throw-in spots.

(Knowing this forum, this is going to cause overly pedantic debates over precisely what is meant by "the spot of the violation.")

Raymond Sat Jul 29, 2023 09:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesBCrazy (Post 1051083)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:



If Team A commits a BC violation in their own FC (or precisely at the division line, which is in both teams' BC) Team B will still be throwing it in from their BC, the same as last year's rule.



Only if Team A commits a BC violation in their own BC (and not at the division line) will Team B throw it in from one of the four throw-in spots.



(Knowing this forum, this is going to cause overly pedantic debates over precisely what is meant by "the spot of the violation.")
NCAA men's clarified a few years ago if the back court violation is caused by Team A touching the division line, they wanted the ensuing throw in for Team B at the division line, which made it a back court throw in with implications on the shot clock.

Since the NFHS seems to be copying the NCAAM's throw-in rule, the NFHS should provide a case play or interp for clarity, IMHO.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JRutledge Sun Jul 30, 2023 04:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1051084)
NCAA men's clarified a few years ago if the back court violation is caused by Team A touching the division line, they wanted the ensuing throw in for Team B at the division line, which made it a back court throw in with implications on the shot clock.

Since the NFHS seems to be copying the NCAAM's throw-in rule, the NFHS should provide a case play or interp for clarity, IMHO.
The fact that the shot clock is not in play (meaning a reset to 20 seconds or so) at this point, where you put the ball really is not as important for high school. It is just more about what the NF ultimately wants to do. But they have to clarify this as you stated or people will be debating this on the court. Not the place we need indecision over a throw-in spot.

Peace

Valley Man Mon Aug 07, 2023 08:55am
4-36, 6-4-3, 7-5-2 thru 4, 9-1 PENALTY 3, 9-4 PENALTY, 9-5 PENALTY, 9-6 PENALTY, 9-8 PENALTY, 9-9 PENALTY, 9-12 PENALTIES 3 & 4, 9-13 PENALTY — Establishing four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-foot mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when a team gains or retains possession in its frontcourt due to a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus or any stoppage other than an out-of-bounds eliminates much of the judgment for an official about where exactly the throw-in spot should be located and allows teams to develop throw-in plays both offensively and defensively from four pre-determined locations.

Offense calling a time out just over the division line will allow offense to move the ball up to the 28' mark in essence .. correct?

BillyMac Mon Aug 07, 2023 01:33pm
Purposely Leaving The Court ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051064)
Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes: 9-3-3: Establishing 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 allows the game to continue without stoppage when the player’s actions did not create an advantage. When an advantage is gained by a player purposely leaving the court and being the first one to touch the ball or leaving the court to avoid a violation, an advantage is gained, and a violation has occurred.
"Purposely leaving the court."

What if a player's momentum accidentally carries a player off the court?

Can said player legally be the first to touch the ball after returning to the court (must immediately return inbounds and have something in, and nothing out, not necessary to have both feet back inbounds) if they did not purposely step out of bounds?

BillyMac Mon Aug 07, 2023 01:52pm
Enquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051089)
"Purposely leaving the court."
This is from my 2022-23 Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Has it changed with the new 2023-24 9-3-3 rule?

JRutledge Mon Aug 07, 2023 02:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051089)
"Purposely leaving the court."

What if a player's momentum accidentally carries a player off the court?

Can said player legally be the first to touch the ball after returning to the court (must immediately return inbounds and have something in, and nothing out, not necessary to have both feet back inbounds) if they did not purposely step out of bounds?
What did you do before? The only change in the rule is the delay portion of the rule. So if their toe was on the line and they did not know they touched the line, I would treat that differently than someone going around the screen set for them and having their entire foot or both feet to get open on the other side of the end line.

Peace

BillyMac Mon Aug 07, 2023 03:22pm
Delay ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051091)
The only change in the rule is the delay portion of the rule.
A technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds has been around for many, many years.

How is this a change?

The rule about a player intentionally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason (not legally being out of bounds to better use a screen, or to avoid three seconds) being a violation has also been around for many, many years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051091)
... someone going around the screen set for them and having their entire foot or both feet to get open on the other side of the end line.
Violation every day the week, been that way for many, many years.

I'm not sure if there was an actual recent change, and if so, exactly what the change is?

Have unintentionally (momentum) and purposely (intentionally) been combined as a violation if said player is the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds?

If so, why add the word "purposely" to the comments on the 2023-24 rule 9-3-3 change?

JRutledge Mon Aug 07, 2023 03:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051093)
A technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds has been around for many, many years.

How is this a change?
This has nothing to do with that rule. You are waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy overthinking this.
Quote:
Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes: 9-3-3: Establishing 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 allows the game to continue without stoppage when the player’s actions did not create an advantage. When an advantage is gained by a player purposely leaving the court and being the first one to touch the ball or leaving the court to avoid a violation, an advantage is gained, and a violation has occurred.
So if they are not the first to touch, you do not have a violation right? Is that not a delay to wait for such a violation to take place? Is there not a delay in a FT violation committed by the opponents of the FTer to if or when we call a violation in most cases? If the ball goes in then we do not call a FT violation in those cases, right? So if the player that goes out of bounds is the 2nd or 3rd person to touch the ball after entering the court, do we still call a violation? No, we do not.

Unless they have something completely in mind, this is the rule from college. There is already an application of this rule that is being implemented. Unless the NF completely had something else in mind, this is the rule we have now.

STOP MAKING THIS CONFUSING WHEN IT IS NOT!!!!!

Peace

BillyMac Mon Aug 07, 2023 03:49pm
Purposely ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051094)
You are waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy overthinking this.
Only because of the word "purposely" is spelled out in the new language, with no mention of "momentum", "accidentally", or "unintentionally" spelled out in the new language.

And no where is the word "delay" mentioned any where in the new language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051094)
Is that not a delay to wait for such a violation to take place?
Agree for college.

Not sure what the NFHS has in mind for high school?

Why did the NFHS stick the word "purposely" in there?

Does the NFHS limit the violation to "purposely" (assuming it's not to gain an advantage (screen) or to avoid a violation (three seconds)?

Or a violation for the player running out of an exit to confuse the opponents (intentionally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason).

JRutledge Mon Aug 07, 2023 03:49pm
Here is the college rule (for clarification purposes)
 
Quote:
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.
Peace

BillyMac Mon Aug 07, 2023 04:10pm
Piss Poor Job ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1051096)
Peace
Thanks JRutledge.

Let's hope that the NFHS has the same intent and purpose and uses the same well defined rule language, maybe with some helpful interpretations.

Because right now the NFHS is doing a piss poor job of explaining this new rule.

JRutledge Mon Aug 07, 2023 04:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051097)
Thanks JRutledge.

Let's hope that the NFHS has the same intent and purpose and uses the same well defined rule language, maybe with some helpful interpretations.

Because right now the NFHS is doing a piss poor job of explaining this new rule.
I think some of us are a little impatient as to what the rules suggest. There are rules announced and we will see the examples later. The NCAA does the same thing. They announce rules changes and we wait to see what they really mean in the fall (like the new LGP changes in NCAA Men's). I think you are wanting something that has to be ironed out with language and other consequences. I really would not worry about this until the new rulebooks are out and the casebooks are finished. Just an opinion.

Peace

Raymond Mon Aug 07, 2023 05:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Man (Post 1051088)
4-36, 6-4-3, 7-5-2 thru 4, 9-1 PENALTY 3, 9-4 PENALTY, 9-5 PENALTY, 9-6 PENALTY, 9-8 PENALTY, 9-9 PENALTY, 9-12 PENALTIES 3 & 4, 9-13 PENALTY — Establishing four throw-in spots (the nearest 28-foot mark along each sideline or the nearest spot 3-feet outside the lane line on the end line) when a team gains or retains possession in its frontcourt due to a violation, a common foul prior to the bonus or any stoppage other than an out-of-bounds eliminates much of the judgment for an official about where exactly the throw-in spot should be located and allows teams to develop throw-in plays both offensively and defensively from four pre-determined locations.



Offense calling a time out just over the division line will allow offense to move the ball up to the 28' mark in essence .. correct?
That is correct.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Raymond Mon Aug 07, 2023 05:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesBCrazy (Post 1051083)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:



If Team A commits a BC violation in their own FC (or precisely at the division line, which is in both teams' BC) Team B will still be throwing it in from their BC, the same as last year's rule.



Only if Team A commits a BC violation in their own BC (and not at the division line) will Team B throw it in from one of the four throw-in spots.



(Knowing this forum, this is going to cause overly pedantic debates over precisely what is meant by "the spot of the violation.")
Just reread your question and realized there were two parts to it.

Yes, if Team A commits a back court violation where the actual violation takes place in their own front court (ball bounces into the back court then returns into the front court before being touched by Team A), Team B's throw in will be in their back court at a designated spot closest to the violation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:52am
Own Volition ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051090)
2022-23 Misunderstood Basketball Rules list: If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
I just revised my 2023-24 Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

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 accidentally go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds.

It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason. It is a technical foul for a player to leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

I will revise again if I discover that I'm wrong.

My local Interpretation Meeting (rule changes) is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

BillyMac Tue Aug 08, 2023 12:03pm
2023-24 Misunderstood New Basketball Rules ...
 
Also revised these:

Shorts on teammates, while allowing for different styles, must be the same color. Players are required to tuck in jerseys that are designed to be tucked inside the shorts.

Undershirts must be a single solid color similar in color to the torso of the uniform jersey, and shall not have frayed edges. Undershirts worn by a visiting team may be black, or a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey. Undershirts shall be the same color for all members of a team who choose to wear them. Undershirt sleeves shall be the same length. Note that this rule does not require all players to wear the same length sleeves on their undershirts, but each individual player must have sleeves the same length on the undershirt when worn.

I will revise again if I discover that I'm wrong.

My local Interpretation Meeting (rule changes) is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

The_Rookie Tue Aug 15, 2023 09:53pm
4-8-1 — Eliminating the one-and-one, shooting two free throws after a team’s fifth foul in a quarter and resetting the fouls after each quarter has the potential to provide a better flow by allowing teams that run into early foul trouble the opportunity to self-correct their style of play at the outset of both the second and fourth quarters. Second, by eliminating the one-and-one, the number of opportunities for correctable errors that result from awarding an unmerited free throw or failing to award a merited free throw are significantly reduced. Finally, the guarantee of two free throws eliminates the physical play that has often been associated with rebounding action on the first free throw.

How will this affect coaching late in the game when a team is down? 1+1 extended the game and allowed strategy to foul .

bob jenkins Wed Aug 16, 2023 06:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rookie (Post 1051109)

How will this affect coaching late in the game when a team is down? 1+1 extended the game and allowed strategy to foul .
A team will be more likely to play defense and try to steal the ball rather than foul. It will shorten the elapsed time of the game.

BillyMac Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:05am
Bonus ...
 
I just realized that in the olden days there could be 24 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws. That number has now increased to 32 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws.

Now if the NFHS could just decease the number of jump balls in the game I would be happy camper.

JRutledge Wed Aug 16, 2023 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051111)
I just realized that in the olden days there could be 24 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws. That number has now increased to 32 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws.

Now if the NFHS could just decease the number of jump balls in the game I would be happy camper.
Well the shot clock will help. And that really just means that they have to play some defense or they will go to the FT line and automatically give 2 shots. I really do not see the issue here. But the shot clock would allow a chance for better defensive situations and not have teams hold the ball.

Peace

BillyMac Wed Aug 16, 2023 03:23pm
Free Throw Activity Events ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1051111)
I just realized that in the olden days there could be 24 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws. That number has now increased to 32 total fouls by both teams in a game with no bonus free throws.
My take away from this is that while we may have the same number of total free throws (due to two instead instead of one and one), we may have fewer free throw "activity events" (lining up kids on lane lines for each event). Of course, as JRutledge stated earlier, the shot clock will also have an impact on free throw "activity events" that may be hard to gauge, fewer free throw "activity events" due to a reluctance to foul (steeper penalty), or more due to a faster up-tempo shot clock game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1