2005-06 rules changes

[refnrev]

Don't the upcoming year's rule changes come out about this time of year. Anyone know when they will be released by the NFHS? I didn't see anything on their website.

[bob jenkins]

The basketball rules committee meets on April 18.

Last year's changes were announce April 28.

[JugglingReferee]

I recall that twice in the past 6 years that I first heard of the new Fed rules in early May.

[tjones1]

Any predictions?????

[Back In The Saddle]

I predict no gray shirts or shot clock. I hope they make the "playing oob" a violation instead of a technical foul. I hope they add some clarification to the term path and to closely guarded.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I hope they make the "playing oob" a violation instead of a technical foul.

Say what?

[Almost Always Right]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Say what?

^ What he said.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Say what?

He must of called a lot of Ts....

[Junker]

I've only seen it called once (it was me) and heard of it called twice. The only reason I called it was that the kid stepped back inbounds after running the length of the baseline oob, caught the ball and made the shot. I couldn't get away with a violation (he was clearly back inbounds) so I had to go with the T. The coach understood after my explanation. Luckily it was in a weekend middle school tournament and not in a HS game. I still think it should be a T, not a violation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right

^ What he said.

He said "I...HOPE...THEY...MAKE...THE..."PLAYING OOB"...A...VIOLATION...INSTEAD...OF...A...TECHNICAL... FOUL"

[FrankHtown]

Ok...where does 9-2-12 fit in? "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins"

I interpret that to mean if a teammate of the thrower goes out of bounds, it's a throw-in violation. Is that the correct interpretation?

Are we to call a violation or a technical?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
Ok...where does 9-2-12 fit in? "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins"

I interpret that to mean if a teammate of the thrower goes out of bounds, it's a throw-in violation. Is that the correct interpretation?

Are we to call a violation or a technical?

That's correct. It's a violation for a seconf player to be OOB when his team's thrower is already OOB with the ball.

[brainbrian]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I hope they make the "playing oob" a violation instead of a technical foul.

I had a partner call it a violation, no one knew the difference. Then afterwards his teammate told him he couldn't do that. They player said "I know."

I would prefer the violation better.

[refnrev]

He said "I...HOPE...THEY...MAKE...THE..."PLAYING OOB"...A...VIOLATION...INSTEAD...OF...A...TECHNICAL... FOUL" [/B][/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________ _________
OK Dan.. I know you said it louder. Now can you say it a little slower.

[refnrev]

Originally posted by Junker
I've only seen it called once (it was me) and heard of it called twice. The only reason I called it was that the kid stepped back inbounds after running the length of the baseline oob, caught the ball and made the shot. I couldn't get away with a violation (he was clearly back inbounds) so I had to go with the T. The coach understood after my explanation. Luckily it was in a weekend middle school tournament and not in a HS game. I still think it should be a T, not a violation.

__________________________________________________ _________
I've seen it called once and it was a bad call, in fact the call was ridiculous. It didn't even fit the situation it is designed to prevent. It was a bad T and I ended up having to have a fan ejected because he wouldn't get off my partner's back. I hope they change this to a violation.