Comments On The 2023-24 Rules Changes ...

[BillyMac]

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... 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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... 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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[JamesBCrazy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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]

Originally Posted by JamesBCrazy

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JamesBCrazy

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"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?