2024-25 NFHS Rules Changes

[Stat-Man]

If flopping has become enough of an issue under NFHS rules that it's being addressed with a rule change, why isn't the penalty a player technical instead of a team technical foul.

Better to charge it to the player and have them halfway to disqualification to drive the point home that there's no place for flopping in the game. A team technical may not be enough of a deterrent for someone who wants to flop repeatedly.

If they want to keep it a team technical, at least make it akin to the plane violation rule where a single player repeatedly breaking the plane is ultimately subject to receiving a player technical per rule 10-4-5-d. If a player is flopping repeatedly, it deserves the same treatment.


That said, I'm glad none of the proposals to tinker with team fouls for the bonus passed. What we have now works well.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

If flopping has become enough of an issue under NFHS rules that it's being addressed with a rule change, why isn't the penalty a player technical instead of a team technical foul.

Better to charge it to the player and have them halfway to disqualification to drive the point home that there's no place for flopping in the game. A team technical may not be enough of a deterrent for someone who wants to flop repeatedly.

If they want to keep it a team technical, at least make it akin to the plane violation rule where a single player repeatedly breaking the plane is ultimately subject to receiving a player technical per rule 10-4-5-d. If a player is flopping repeatedly, it deserves the same treatment.


That said, I'm glad none of the proposals to tinker with team fouls for the bonus passed. What we have now works well.

You make it a player technical and you'll have less enforcement. I think as it is it will be over called.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

If flopping has become enough of an issue under NFHS rules that it's being addressed with a rule change, why isn't the penalty a player technical instead of a team technical foul.

Better to charge it to the player and have them halfway to disqualification to drive the point home that there's no place for flopping in the game. A team technical may not be enough of a deterrent for someone who wants to flop repeatedly.

If they want to keep it a team technical, at least make it akin to the plane violation rule where a single player repeatedly breaking the plane is ultimately subject to receiving a player technical per rule 10-4-5-d. If a player is flopping repeatedly, it deserves the same treatment.


That said, I'm glad none of the proposals to tinker with team fouls for the bonus passed. What we have now works well.

Two free throws and loss of possession are significant enough that a coach will get his TEAM to stop. I really don't think any coach is going to leave a player in the game who's repeatedly costing his team 2 free throws and possession.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

If they want to keep it a team technical, at least make it akin to the plane violation rule where a single player repeatedly breaking the plane is ultimately subject to receiving a player technical per rule 10-4-5-d. If a player is flopping repeatedly, it deserves the same treatment.

So if B1 flops in the first period, Team B gets a warning.

If B1 flops again in the second period, he gets a player technical foul, whereas if the second flop by a Team B player had been by B2 instead, if would be a team technical foul on Team B?

In a different game, if defender B1 illegally breaks the boundary plane in the first period, we warn Team B for delay.

If B1 again illegally breaks the boundary plane in the second period, don't we only charge Teams B with team technical foul for delay, and not charge B1 with a player technical foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

If flopping has become enough of an issue under NFHS rules that it's being addressed with a rule change, why isn't the penalty a player technical instead of a team technical foul?

Better to charge it to the player and have them halfway to disqualification to drive the point home that there's no place for flopping in the game. A team technical may not be enough of a deterrent for someone who wants to flop repeatedly.

If they want to keep it a team technical, at least make it akin to the plane violation rule where a single player repeatedly breaking the plane is ultimately subject to receiving a player technical per rule 10-4-5-d. If a player is flopping repeatedly, it deserves the same treatment.


That said, I'm glad none of the proposals to tinker with team fouls for the bonus passed. What we have now works well.

Let us make it clear, they took this rule from other levels. This was never a stated NF rule despite what people want to say. Nothing ever backed up the language that flopping the way described was to be penalized. Seems like they are even expanding what they feel is the rule or not the rule.

The other levels or at least NCAA Men's gave this a one-shot T and it was put in a category that rarely ejected a player. It was not a personal foul or went towards the 5 possible fouls a player could get. I think they tried to make the penalty for the act somewhat minor so we would call it. I know I am going to call it now. It will not be something a player will foul out on and I get to make a point while the team only loses the ball and gains points from the opponent. And it is only a T after a warning.

Peace

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So if B1 flops in the first period, Team B gets a warning.

If B1 flops again in the second period, he gets a player technical foul, whereas if the second flop by a Team B player had been by B2 instead, if would be a team technical foul on Team B?

In a different game, if defender B1 illegally breaks the boundary plane in the first period, we warn Team B for delay.

If B1 again illegally breaks the boundary plane in the second period, don't we only charge Teams B with team technical foul for delay, and not charge B1 with a player technical foul?

A video from A Better Official covering technical fouls presented a scenario where the same player keeps violating the throw-in plane over and over as a potential basis for assessing a player T under 10-4-5-d versus the usual team technical foul for delay.

https://youtu.be/bcqIOUB1Xw0?feature=shared&t=823

Originally Posted by Raymond

Two free throws and loss of possession are significant enough that a coach will get his TEAM to stop. I really don't think any coach is going to leave a player in the game who's repeatedly costing his team 2 free throws and possession.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I suppose we will see how well the rule change addresses flopping in the upcoming season. If it works as intended, great. If not, I won't be surprised if there are tweaks proposed for 2025-26.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was never a stated NF rule despite what people want to say.

It wasn't? The text reads "Changes the penalty for faking being fouled...."

Notice the word "Changes". Rule 10-4-6f.


Additionally...from referee mag in 2020: https://www.referee.com/flopping-for...repercussions/

[JRutledge]

Are they getting rid of 10-4-6f? If not, then that was not the intent of the rule. Again you intend a vague language to support something, you support it with interpretations that have meaning. This had no meaning that suggested flopping.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In a different game, if defender B1 illegally breaks the boundary plane in the first period, we warn Team B for delay. If B1 again illegally breaks the boundary plane in the second period, don't we only charge Teams B with team technical foul for delay, and not charge B1 with a player technical foul?

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

A video from A Better Official covering technical fouls presented a scenario where the same player keeps violating the throw-in plane over and over as a potential basis for assessing a player T under 10-4-5-d versus the usual team technical foul for delay https://youtu.be/bcqIOUB1Xw0?feature=shared&t=823

Even Greg Austin admits that 10-4-5-D Player Technical "stumps" him.

10-4-5-D: Player Technical: A player must not: Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

9-2-10: Throw-In Provisions: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

When does the Player Technical "kick" in?

In my situation above?

Third time by same player?

Fourth time by same player?

Fifth time on the same player, as Greg Austin described?

At what point does this become a travesty situation, leading to the "nuclear" option?

5-4-1: Forfeiture: The referee may also forfeit a game if any player, team member, bench personnel or coach … repeatedly commits technical-foul infractions or other acts which make a travesty of the game

It becomes a double "dueling banjos" issue.

First, when the same player violates twice, or more, a choice between Player Technical or Team Technical.

And then (more violations by the same player) a choice between another technical or a forfeit.

I wonder if 10-4-5-D is an "artifact" from before we had the various delay warnings and penalties, and has somehow "survived" over the many years for someone like Stat-Man, Greg Austin, or Billy Mac to "stumble" over?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1996-97: 3-3-6: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game.

2005-06 3-3-5: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the timeout.

2013-14 3-3-6: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and comes onto the court must be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the timeout.

2024-25 3-3-6: Requires a player who has been injured to be removed from the game if the coach is beckoned by the official, whether the coach enters the playing area or not, or if bench personnel (i.e., a coach or athletic trainer) enters the court without being beckoned. The coach may still use a time-out to continue assessment of the injury and keep the injured player in the game.

Interesting evolution of this rule, some of it unannounced.

Previous to 2005-06 (my books only go back to 1996-97), a coach couldn’t “buy” his player back into the game with a timeout if the coach was beckoned and/or came onto the court.

Previous to 2013-14, if a coach was beckoned, but didn’t enter the court, the player was still directed to leave the game (timeout exception added in 2006-07).

From 2013-14 to 2023-24, if a coach was beckoned, but didn’t enter the court, the player was not directed to leave the game.

Now, in 2024-25, we have a rule citation that says that if a coach was only beckoned, but didn’t enter the court, the player is now (once again) directed to leave the game (with timeout exception). And we also have actual rule language (I believe for the first time) in support that a coach can enter the court to attend to an injured player without an official beckoning.

Forty-plus years ago, our local interpreter told us that if a coach entered the court to attend to an injured player without officially being beckoning, we were to “deem” him to be beckoned. He didn’t want any technical fouls charged to coaches for leaving the bench (seat belt rule back then, coaching box later) to attend to an injured player without officially being beckoning.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was wrong, off by a year, but still wrong.

Casebook plays from 1996-97 to 2004-05 confirm that a coach couldn’t “buy” his player back into the game with a timeout if the coach was beckoned and/or came onto the court.

Rule changed (timeout exception) in 2005-06.

I'll correct above.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just want to avoid doing this (below).



Next year, even if the coach doesn't enter the court, if he was beckoned (visually and verbally for everyone to see and hear), he has to burn a timeout (if he has one), or have the player "sit a tick".

Now that we have rulebook language that seems to indicate that there is no technical foul for leaving the coaching box in an injury situation (never was by local interpretation), I intend to be more patient to beckon in such situations.

I just sat down this afternoon to read the NFHS Press Release because I was in Akron this past weekend watching Mark, Jr. umpire in the Great Midwest Athletic Conference Softball Championship Tournament and only had my NFHS and NCAA Softball books with me.

I want to thank BillyMac for climbing into his attic at address the changes to R3-S3-A6 and its history for me, ��!

I will address the "flopping" rule later because many of you know position on this situation, and I intend to address it in the Facebook Groups: Wood County Basketball Officials Association, NFHS - Basketball Officials, and Basketball Officials Forum.

Therefore I will address the "Dunking a Dead Ball" rules change. The rule change is, essentially, returning to the Penalty when the Rule was amended by the NBC for 1971-72. The Penalty was an Administrative TF; it was not charged to the Dunker (and of course it did not count toward the Team Totals nor was it charged as an IDTF to the HC).

MTD, Sr.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are they getting rid of 10-4-6f? If not, then that was not the intent of the rule. Again you intend a vague language to support something, you support it with interpretations that have meaning. This had no meaning that suggested flopping.

Peace

It wasn't? What was the intent of the rule? Isn't flopping the same thing as "faking being fouled"? Were the people at Referee mag all wrong years ago?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

It wasn't? What was the intent of the rule? Isn't flopping the same thing as "faking being fouled"? Were the people at Referee mag all wrong years ago?

The rule talks about FTs, not fouls during a play. And again, there was a case play that addressed that, never one that addressed a flop or even called anything a flop.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Schoolhouse Rock, 1973

Originally Posted by bucky

Isn't flopping the same thing as "faking being fouled"?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule talks about FTs, not fouls during a play ... there was a case play that addressed that, never one that addressed a flop or even called anything a flop.

At the risk of wading onto a pool of sharks, I’d like to enter this debate.

JRutledge is 100% correct that the word “flop” is not found anywhere in the current rulebook or casebook, nor do I believe that it was ever found in past rulebooks or casebooks.

Flopping is not a formal rule language term, but an informal colloquial term used by many in the world of basketball.

However, while the old rule did mention free throws, it used the coordinating conjunction “or” which means that any part of the sentence can stand by itself, i.e., only "faking being fouled".

While I agree with bucky that flopping is the same as faking being fouled, I also agree with JRutledge that there is now much more in the rule with the addition of the faking being fouled definition in Rule 4.

The important take away is that the penalty has changed (player technical changed to team warning followed by team technical).

NFHS Previous To 2024-25: 10-4-6-F: Player Technical: A player must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Faking being fouled, knowingly attempting a free throw, or accepting a foul to which the player was not entitled.

NFHS 2024-25: 10-2-1g, 10-4-6f: Team Warning, Team Technical: Establishes a procedure for officials to issue a team warning on the first instance of faking being fouled. The warning is recorded in the scorebook and reported to the head coach. Any additional instances will result in a team technical foul.

NFHS 2024-25: 4-49: Faking being fouled as when a player simulates being fouled or makes theatrical or exaggerated movements when there is no illegal contact. Examples include, but are not limited to, embellishing the impact of incidental contact on block/charge plays or field goal attempts, using a “head bob” to simulate illegal contact and using any tactic to create an opinion of being fouled to gain an advantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Regarding pre-game dunking ... Why it is not allowed at HS level is beyond me.

1) High school age and middle school age athletes are less likely to easily be able to successfully dunk and thus are more likely to injure themselves trying to do something that they struggle to do compared to older college and professional athletes.

2) Break, or bend, a rim in a high school gym, or a middle school gym, and one is less likely going have a readily available replacement rim, and/or someone skilled enough to quickly replace it, or repair it, than in a college gym, or a professional gym.

In an interscholastic game, a bent, or broken rim, is more likely to result in both teams (players, coaches, cheerleaders), one team that traveled to the game in an expensive bus, paid officials, paid table crew, paid police officer in the corner, paid press and photographers, and hundreds of ticket buying fans, postponing the game, turning out the gym lights, and going home, than in a collegiate, or professional game.

I see bent, and broken, rims all the time on outdoor playground backboards.

I really don't want to see such in my interscholastic gyms.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) High school age and middle school age athletes are less likely to easily be able to successfully dunk and thus are more likely to injure themselves trying to do something that they struggle to do compared to older college and professional athletes.

2) Break, or bend, a rim in a high school gym, or a middle school gym, and one is less likely going have a readily available replacement rim, and/or someone skilled enough to quickly replace it, or repair it, than in a college gym, or a professional gym.

In an interscholastic game, a bent, or broken rim, is more likely to result in both teams (players, coaches, cheerleaders), one team that traveled to the game in an expensive bus, paid officials, paid table crew, paid police officer in the corner, paid press and photographers, and hundreds of ticket buying fans, postponing the game, turning out the gym lights, and going home, than in a collegiate, or professional game.

I see bent, and broken, rims all the time on outdoor playground backboards.

I really don't want to see such in my interscholastic gyms.

All of that stuff could have been said regarding college ball but now they are allowed. In addition, there are far more dunks in the same gym, outside of a game, and the number of equipment failures is, oh, idk, a few.

https://www.sbnation.com/2015/6/9/87...technical-foul

BillyMac - you probably enjoy https://basketballuniverse.io/dunkin...armups-exists/