IAABO New Rule Interpretation ...

[BillyMac]

Last night, T.J. Halliday, IAABO International Director of Learning and Development, gave a Summer Zoom presentation on Enhancing Communication.

During the presentation he mentioned a 2025-26 NFHS rule change that seems to go above and beyond what we've already heard from the NFHS.

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.

Here are his slides:





On top of using the three point arc instead of the old "Rocket Ship" trapezoid, he implied that, with the exception of out of bounds violations, that we would be using the "eight spots", and only the "eight spots", for all other stoppages in play, in both the frontcourt and the backcourt.

Last year we only used the "four spots, for non out of bounds stoppages in the frontcourt, there were no "four spots" for any type of throwin in the backcourt, just endline or sideline based on the old "Rocket Ship" trapezoid.

Has IAABO once again "stuck its nose where it doesn't belong" and interpreted, or misinterpreted, a NFHS rule?

Or has the NFHS 7-5-4 change really been extended to both the frontcourt and the backcourt, resulting in "eight spots" (not just "four spots") for all non out of bounds throwins?

[bob jenkins]

We discussed it on the form when the changes were first announced in May. The first NFHS press release said "frontcourt." Then, someone asked the NFHS and they changed the release to "Frontcourt and backcourt."

Just search the forum

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We discussed it on the form when the changes were first announced in May. The first NFHS press release said "frontcourt." Then, someone asked the NFHS and they changed the release to "Frontcourt and backcourt."

I certainly remember.

Back then I just figured (possibly incorrectly) that we would be using the three point arc instead of the old "Rocket Ship" trapezoid to simply determine endline or sideline in the backcourt, but not to determine which of the "four spots" in the backcourt.

Nothing about "four spots" in the rule change, even with the addition the word "backcourt", nor in the rationale.

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.

[BillyMac]

Asked and got this reply from T.J. Halliday, IAABO International Director of Learning and Development:

That press releases that the NFHS put out are not always as detailed to capture the entire rule.

I serve on a subcommittee of the NFHS Rules Committee that was responsible for updating Rule 7 in the NFHS Rules Book and Case Book this year. I was the one who wrote the proposed language for these changes. They have editors that review these proposals, so you never know what the final wording will be until the NFHS rules book is sent to the printer.

However, I did receive the information I am about to share with you below directly from the NFHS Rules Editor, Monica Maxwell.

Here are the edited rules:

7-5-3:
ART. 3 . . . After a violation (9-1, 9-2, 9-4 through 9-13) by either team, a foul by either team before the bonus is in effect or any other stoppage in play, the throw-in location will be determined by the location of the violation/foul or the location of the ball when the stoppage occurs. If the throw-in is to be in the team's frontcourt or backcourt, 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. (Diagram 5)

7-5-4:
ART. 4 . . . Officials shall determine the designated spot by using the three-point arc. If the stoppage of play occurs on or within the three-point arc, the designated spot shall be the nearest point on the end line 3-feet outside the lane line. (See Number 1 on Diagram 5.) If the stoppage occurs outside the three-point arc, the designated spot shall be the nearest sideline at the 28-foot line. (See Number 2 on Diagram 5.)

The NFHS is working on their fall publications and will make it clear in those releases.

My note: 9-3 (missing from 7-5-3 language) is Out of Bounds.

[BillyMac]

So indeed, it’s now “eight spots” instead of “four spots”.

For the past two seasons, even though I pregamed it before every single game, my partners and I would struggle with the “four spot” rule.

“Old dog new tricks.”

The 2025 NFHS Basketball Rules Questionnaire asked about requiring all frontcourt throwins to take place at one of the four spots used for violations, fouls and other stoppages.

For both simplicity and consistency sake I was hoping the NFHS would go in that direction, even adding all backcourt throwins.

Of course, if the eight markings were painted on all courts, that would make our jobs a lot easier.

They are not on a lot on our high school courts, and of course, they are on none of our middle school courts.

Have to wait until the next time the schools refinish their courts.

Without these markings, players look at me like I’m from Mars when I point to an unmarked spot, especially the unmarked spot three feet away for the lane line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course, if the eight markings were painted on all courts, that would make our jobs a lot easier. They are not on a lot on our high school courts, and of course, they are on none of our middle school courts. Have to wait until the next time the schools refinish their courts. Without these markings, players look at me like I’m from Mars when I point to an unmarked spot, especially the unmarked spot three feet away for the lane line.

A proposal was actually submitted to the NFHS in April to require markings on the playing court, but it did not pass. The committee expressed concern about placing an added financial burden on schools.

We've got a lot of high schools and middle schools that still don't have coaching boxes marked.

Connecticut has a Connecticut only rule:

Coaching boxes must be marked, if not, home team will lose the coaching box, visiting team will have the coaching box, notify commissioner.

Nobody enforces it.

Nobody wants to tell the home coach that they have to sit while the visiting coach gets to stand.

Nobody wants to start a game that way.

Not a great way to build good rapport with a coach.

Great way to piss off a coach with thirty-two minutes left in the game.