2025-26 NFHS Rules Changes

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Will we still use the Rocket Ship Diagram for out of bounds violations?



Rocket Ship Diagram 2009, Back In The Saddle

Why do you need a diagram for an out of bounds violation? Throw in from the exact spot the ball went out of bounds except between the lane lines.

Am I missing something?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Why do you need a diagram for an out of bounds violation? Throw in from the exact spot the ball went out of bounds except between the lane lines. Am I missing something?

No, I'm missing something, and I overthought (or underthought) the concept.

I was distracted by this:

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt.

So I guess that the Rocket Ship Diagram (© 2009, Back In The Saddle) has blasted off on its last journey.

Right?

[SNIPERBBB]

No more rocket ship. Unfortunately people aren't very good with the rocket ship. They thought everything inside the arc went to the endline spots.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

No more rocket ship. Unfortunately people aren't very good with the rocket ship. They thought everything inside the arc went to the endline spots.

Interesting. I used the rocket ship when it was a thing. However, the NFHS is trying to idiot-proof the spots where the ball goes.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Interesting. I used the rocket ship when it was a thing. However, the NFHS is trying to idiot-proof the spots where the ball goes.

As much as it is being put in place so players and coaches can easily discern the throw in spot, it's also in place because of the laziness and inattention to detail many officials have shown over the years.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Interesting. I used the rocket ship when it was a thing. However, the NFHS is trying to idiot-proof the spots where the ball goes.

Coaches were arguing over the location of a throw-in, now we do have that debate in the FC.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can anyone confirm my personal interpretation of the new rules regarding basket interference and slapping the backboard while still leaving the Ralph Sampson Rule in place?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Best I can say is that in NCAA Men's basketball, slapping the backboard is basket interference if it vibrates the ring while the ball is on it.

I'd have to look back, but I would think Jeff probably provided the Men's interpretation.

The college interpretation was simple. If the ball was influenced by the vibrating of the backboard or rim because of a slap, then you could call BI on these plays. Simply hitting the backboard was not enough because sometimes the ball never made it on the basket or rim, even if there was a slap. Still some judgment, but that was how it was interpreted. Now, what the NF will ultimately say or use is still up for some debate. I believe they are adopting the current college interpretation, but they tend to retain some aspects specific to the NF. Just look at the rollout with the flopping and how many iterations of that application that was mulled over and still are being mulled over.

Peace

[Zoochy]

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt.
So, what if there is a stoppage of play in the Backcourt? Rocket Ship? Or use existing 3-point marking?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt.
So, what if there is a stoppage of play in the Backcourt? Rocket Ship? Or use existing 3-point marking?

The rocket ship should still apply in the backcourt. In NFHS rules now, any stoppage in the frontcourt, other than OOB, uses the 4 designated spots.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The rocket ship should still apply in the backcourt. In NFHS rules now, any stoppage in the frontcourt, other than OOB, uses the 4 designated spots.

The Rocket Ship lives on to blast off again!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The rocket ship should still apply in the backcourt. In NFHS rules now, any stoppage in the frontcourt, other than OOB, uses the 4 designated spots.

We are going to have to get that explained or more wording. Because right now, it seems like this is for everywhere on the court. I would doubt the NF would have two different diagrams based on the FC and BC. But stranger things have happened.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Elton John

Nice. One of my favorite Elton John songs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt.

So, what if there is a stoppage of play in the Backcourt? Rocket Ship? Or use existing 3-point marking?

Nevermind my original response, misread post.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[ltllng]

I emailed the NFHS to fix the wording on this.
The Rocket Ship is now GONE!

Updated here:
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource...anges-2025-26/

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt and backcourt. Instead of relying on an imaginary line, officials now use existing court markings, specifically the three-point line, to determine the location. This change improves accuracy, consistency, and clarity for officials by using visible floor markings rather than imaginary lines, which were often misjudged.

Rationale: By using the visible three-point line as the line of demarcation, officials will have a clearer and more consistent method for determining throw-in locations. This improves accuracy and reduces confusion, resulting in more reliable throw-ins.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by ltllng

I emailed the NFHS to fix the wording on this.
The Rocket Ship is now GONE!

Updated here:
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource...anges-2025-26/

7-5-4: This rule change updates the procedure for determining the designated throw-in spot following a stoppage of play (not due to the ball going out of bounds) in the frontcourt and backcourt. Instead of relying on an imaginary line, officials now use existing court markings, specifically the three-point line, to determine the location. This change improves accuracy, consistency, and clarity for officials by using visible floor markings rather than imaginary lines, which were often misjudged.

Rationale: By using the visible three-point line as the line of demarcation, officials will have a clearer and more consistent method for determining throw-in locations. This improves accuracy and reduces confusion, resulting in more reliable throw-ins.

Itling:

Where did the NFHS make any change to R7-S5-A4 in its May 28, 2025 publication from its May 21, 2025 publication. I do not see any change in the Rule nor in its Rationale. Both the May 21, 2025 publication and the May 28, 2025 publication are the same: word for word.

MTD, Sr.