2024-25 NFHS Rules Changes

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

And what exactly changes between how I handled this last year and how I'll handle it this year?

I just want to avoid doing this (below).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Last season, I actually had a coach refuse to enter the court to attend to his injured player after I beckoned him. Best player, fourth period of a close game. He didn't want to "burn" a timeout to keep his best player in the game. Sure enough, in a few short seconds, the "injured" star player bounced back up and was ready to play. The coach obviously knew his player (a former Academy Award winner) much better than me.

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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

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/

Exactly. They're just emphasizing and spelling it out while decreasing the penalty since very few called it and some even denied it even existed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly. They're just emphasizing and spelling it out while decreasing the penalty since very few called it and some even denied it even existed.

There was never a definition for flopping or even the word "flopping" used in any rulebook or interpretation. It was never spelled out how to enforce or the multiple situations in which a player can flop. So if that was the intent, it was horribly executed or stated. Now that they put in this rule, some people do not even understand how you even adjudicate this current rule yet for some real situations. People are now debating when you stop the game. But this was so clearly defined before right? LOL!!!!!

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was never a definition for flopping or even the word "flopping" used in any rulebook or interpretation.

Still isn't.

4-49 (NEW), 10-2-1g (NEW), 10-4-6f: Changes the penalty for faking being fouled from a player technical to a warning for the first violation and a team technical for any subsequent offense and adds a definition and examples. Rationale: Allows officials to issue a warning before assessing a technical and the technical will now be assessed to the team and not the player, lessening the severity of the penalty while addressing the behavior.

Faking being fouled is defined in Rule 4-49-1 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. The new language also 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 and not a player technical foul, which was previously the case.

Maybe we'll see the F-word when the NFHS comments on the 2024-25 Basketball Point of Emphasis Faking Being Fouled; or when the NFHS publishes annual interpretations.