Overall -- I like them!!!

Here they are!!!


2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes


3-4-15, 10-3-7h New, 10-4-1i New:
Prohibits a team member from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul.

7-5-5, 4-19-7 New:
Changed the penalty to a throw-in for a team-control foul in all cases. A new definition for a team-control foul was also added.

7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

9-3-2 New, 10-3-3:
Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

2005-06 Major Editorial Changes

4-19-3 Clarified the definition of an intentional foul.
5-2-1 Clarified when a three-point goal shall be scored.
10-5 Section 10-5 was reorganized to clarify the coaching box rule.

2005-06 Points of Emphasis

1. Sporting Behavior
2. Free Throws
3. Intentional Fouls

...Appear to be upgrades.

I really like them :cool:

YES!!! Yes yes yes yes yes!

That's the way, uh uh, I like it!

--------------------------------

They'll do. :)

I like them, but have a question.

What do they mean in rule 7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

I understand it for the most part, just not by the whole "point of interruption" what is that? Thanks

I believe that they mean the penalty for a double foul, etc. now will be to charge both players with the foul (as before) and put the ball back into play at the point of interruption rather than going to the arrow. For example, A is on offense when A2 and B2 are going at it in the post. The official calls the double foul, and gives the ball back to A (since they had it at the POI) for a throw-in. I'm guess that you'd throw in from the spot nearest the where the ball was at the time of the foul call, rather than at the spot nearest the foul.

POI is currently used in the NCAA rules, basically instead of using the AP arrow, you just give the ball back to the team who had posession of the ball at the designated spot closes to where the fouls occured.

There's a second article on the nfhs.org site that lists the rationale behind some of the changes. The rationale for the no removing the jersey/shorts rule is to penalize players who do this as an act of disrespect or to express disgust. Fair enough.

But what does this change mean in regards to the occassional need to switch jersies because of becoming saturated with blood? Will those players need to dash off the lockerroom to exchange jersies? Will they need to be supervised? Will they need to get an official's permission or risk a T for leaving the area? Hopefully there will be some clarification as to when *not* to make this call.

The rationale article
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mary Struckhoff

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (April 28, 2005) —As a result of a new rule implemented at the April 17-18 National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Basketball Rules Committee meeting, the penalty for a team-control foul will be a throw-in in all cases. The team-control foul rule and three other changes made by the committee were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The addition of Rule 4-19-7 and revision of Rule 7-5-5 establishes the definition of a team-control foul and now makes the penalty consistent with a player-control foul. With these revisions, the enforcement by officials is simplified and it is anticipated that the length of delays in games will be shortened.

“This change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials,” said Larry Boucher, assistant commissioner of Kentucky High School Athletic Association and chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. “Under the present rule, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a player in control has released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges. It is equally difficult to determine whether a player has received a pass before the player charges. This change now makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul.”

Revisions to Rules 7-5-9 and 7-5-10 change the penalty for a double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point at which it was interrupted.

According to Boucher, no team should benefit from the act. The fouls will be charged to the players of each team and the ball will be put back in play. This change may increase the likelihood that double fouls will be called more often when warranted.

In an effort to increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and to eliminate a tremendous advantage, Rule 9-3-2 was added. The rule states that players leaving the court for unauthorized reasons will be charged with a violation instead of a technical foul, which was the former penalty. “We want to stress that the game of basketball is to be played within the lines,” said Mary Struckhoff, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. “This will be a deterrent against players leaving the court and also easier to enforce for officials.”

Rule 3-4-15 prohibits a team member from removing his or her uniform within the confines of the playing area. According to Struckhoff, players removing their uniforms to show disgust is becoming an increasingly popular trend.

Previously, there was no rule that specifically addressed players removing their jerseys. With the addition of this rule, the act will be penalized with a technical foul.

In addition to the rules changes each year, the committee identifies certain aspects of the game that need special attention that are deemed Points of Emphasis. This year’s Points of Emphasis focused on three themes: unsporting conduct, free throws and intentional fouls

I'm going to assume, without actually having seen the changes, that POI means the ball is put back in play where it was at the time of the double fouls. For example, if A1 just dribbled across halfcourt, and A2 and B1 go at it, the double fouls are reported and A gets the ball back at halfcourt for the throw-in. Or, lets say A1 is shooting the first of two FT's, and right after A1 makes the first, A3 and B2 each mention something about each other's momma. Report the double T, then go back and A1 will shoot their second free throw. In other words, you will go back to the "point of interruption".

I'd assume that a little common sense will prevail here. Jersey saturated with blood, let the player change. The intent is obviously to do away with the taunting and preening. I can't see the intent being to penalize a player with a ripped jersey.

I completely agree. And it's not a big deal. I'm just hoping that the NFHS or local state association will just touch on this and make that clear. Common sense is not nearly so common when each person has to determine for him/herself how to apply the rule.

Good stuff. I like them.

Finally - something to read in the bb forum.

Seem to be some good upgrades. The only time I've really seen players take off their jerseys is directly after the game is over and they'll shake hands with the other team without a jersey on. I guess we still can't enforce that one other than a "Please put your jersey back on."

So when do these rules take affect? June 1st?

BITS, Joseph already posted the article in a separate thread.

Guess Tony won't call me a plumber anymore if I blow a whistle on one of those leaving the court plays. ;)

Ok, but what if the defense does this???

I am sure that the casebook will have some plays to justify this call. I do not think they spirit of the rule will apply to every possible situation. The NCAA that used this rule last year for the first time used a very specific situation that this would be used as their example. Some would like to say that it applied to more situations than what was widely discussed. I know it will be one of the first questions I ask of the rules interpreter at the rules meetings in the fall.

Peace

Dittos! I was hoping to hear your insight again JRut, as I recall us having this discussion not to long ago. :)

In the college meetings I attended, we were told to not call a violation for just a simple touching the boundary line or issues of momentum. We were told to basically consider this just at the NF used it for a Technical foul this past year. So if a player avoided a screen, or just went out of bounds to become undetected then it would be a violation. If you have a loose ball and a player simply touched the out of bounds line and then reestablished themselves in bounds and was the first to touch the ball, that was not how the rule was not suppose to be applied in our discussions in my conferences. Some have disagreed with that, but I never saw any discussions that suggested that was the proper application of the rule. Maybe the NF will clarify in more detail. The NCAA sure did not do that.

Peace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

The addition of Rule 4-19-7 and revision of Rule 7-5-5 establishes the definition of a team-control foul and now makes the penalty consistent with a player-control foul.
__________________________________________________ _______
I like the changes. They look good, but help me out here. Am I missing the definition of a team control foul?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by refnrev

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle I like the changes. They look good, but help me out here. Am I missing the definition of a team control foul?

This is an adoption of the NCAA rule. Any foul committed by the team in control and the team that has the throw-in, the foul will be considered a team control foul. Which basically means all fouls by the team in control will not have FTs shoot if the team is in the bonus. I am sure they will take the exact same language and transfer it over to the NF code.

Peace

Finally! I've been hoping for this one for years! Any idea how they'll handle fouls by the offense during a throw-in?

Ok, but I'd also like to see the POI adopted for a single T.

So is the point of team control to speed up the game?

[Edited by refnrev on Apr 28th, 2005 at 10:35 PM]

Ok, but I'd also like to see the POI adopted for a single T. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not me. There's no reason to lessen the penalty for a technical foul.

Yes and to make the rules consistent across the board. If you read the article put out by the NF, this helps to make it easier so an official does not have to decide if a foul was a player control foul or just a common foul. Now we do not have to make sure we have the shooter after an illegal screen foul is called.

Peace

One reason is that you might just see more of them called.

Whoops! Missed that one.

I never seen a defender do it but have seen the offense do it several times.

If there is a screen where the best path to get around is OOB, that suggest that the player they're trying to keep up with also went OOB. Otherwise, we're likely to have a block on the screener. If the player they're guarding when on the inbounds side of the screen, then going OOB is probably a disadvantage.


BTW, I think ALL of these are good changes. No senseless tinkering.

I will agree with you there that 99% of the time the offense is the one going to be doing it. But as I've said before, I hope they clairfy with a case book sitution or explain in detail at the rules interp.

would you believe???
 

The new rules to be added from NFHS are the same as the NCAA women's rules. Maybe one miner change from NCAA rules. Interesting

defensive OOB
 

situation last year when a defensive player went oob because he was effectively boxed out...he went out then back in under the basket to avoid the other taller players...let it go because I didn't know how to call it or the proper penalty to enforce. would this be a scenarnio that could be a defensive oob violation?

Re: would you believe???
 

These are changes from the NCAA code, not just Women's basketball.

Re: defensive OOB
 

If a player is so effectively boxed out that they OOB, I wondering why there wan't a foul.