From NFHS website:

All Team-Control Fouls Penalized by Throw-In


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.

Basketball is the most popular sport in girls high school athletics, with 457,986 participants in 17,061 schools, according to the 2003-04 High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by the NFHS. In terms of participation, it is the second-most popular sport for boys, with 544,811 participants, and it ranks first with 17,389 schools offering programs.

OUTSTANDING !!! I whacked 3 kids for this this past season

I am waiting for the official that is going to give a T for a player that is just changing their jersey and not reacting to an official.

Peace

That's what worries me as well - I'm hoping they clear that up in the pre-season meetings. I'm sure the intent of the rule is to address the taunting and "look at me" aspect, but I can see major confusion with some lower level officials who will follow the rule to the letter.

However, if Brandy Chastain were to do it again I'm not sure I would give a T for that... ;)

There is a specific case for allowing players to change jerseys without penalty in case of a torn jersey or having blood on it. I don't foresee a problem.

Z

I am not talking about changing a jersey for blood or repair reasons. :rolleyes:

Peace

Is this related to "shirt popping" that we saw so much in this years NCAA Tourney?

Why would a player need to change his jersey on the "confines of the playing court"? Doesn't this mean the inbounds area? Can't the player change on the bench? Or, here's a novel idea ... How about changing in the locker room?

I just saw the real rule. Sorry. The paper got the rule wrong. What a surprise!

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.

Newer mind. (I've heard that somewhere before.)

[Edited by Jimgolf on Apr 29th, 2005 at 01:04 PM]

I've never seen a player pull their jersey off other than for blood or repair or else for the "technical foul" reason. What else is there? Maybe I don't get out enough.

Z

Where I am, I believe pulling the jersey out in disgust on the floor was a POE a couple of years ago as related to sportsmanhip? I know I've thrown a T for this very thing and I heard a local team lost a game because a player did this. Does anyone remember this being discussed at meetings last year?

I have seen players take jerseys off because they were removing undershirts that did not comply with the rules. Some official out there will try to make a player go to the locker room or T them up. Mark my words on this. Someone will post the very question here or you will hear about someone will call a T outside of what the rule was made for. Unless of course they clarify this further and still someone will go looking for s##t and still call this. Or at the very least some coach will get upset at an official for not calling a T. I will not likely happen at the varsity level, but I can easily see this called at the lower levels, where the jerseys are many times "warm up" style jerseys and you can flip the uniforms from one color to another.

I feel the same way about Rule 9-3-2 as well. There will be people calling all kinds of violations if the NF Committee does not clarify all the situations they want this to be applied and not applied.

Peace

I haven't been in this business for a long time (4+ years), but please don't tell me that there are that many people walking around wearing ref shirts that lack the common sense to realize the difference between flipping shirts to change colors and an unsporting act like a McCants. Goodness, what have I gotten myself into?!?!?!?

No seriously though, I think most people with one iota of common sense know when the player is reacting to something. Most times when I've seen this, it was because they were being removed from the game and didn't like it or if they got a call or didn't get a call. I like the added pressure on the kids to "keep their clothes on and play the game".

Fortunately, my association emphasizes common sense and I can't envision those calls happening locally. But I get your point... I have met rulebook refs who look for trouble before. Calling a T on a kid for removing an undershirt would be an all-time stretch though that would be worthy of a hall of shame officiating award. :eek:

Z

An association can emphasize all they want to, that does not mean some newer or rulebook official will not come up with a misapplication of a rule because "they read it that way." I do not care what your (or my) association tries to convey to their officials you cannot tell me everyone follows everything your group says. I also work with a lot of people that are not in a group I belong. It is not the people in my association I am worried about or even in my area. I am worried about some guy that works a game somewhere far away and I will have some coach ask me, "Does the rule say that when a player........" Then I have to roll my eyes and say to that coach, "He did what?" It happens every year and this rule was never involved.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Apr 30th, 2005 at 07:53 PM]

I really like 9-3-2, calling a violation instead of a Technical on a player who runs OOB (like to avoid a pick).
This is in line with the "swinging elbows not hitting anyone" violation. It was rarely called because refs were reluctant to call a T for this.

I know they put this rule in in volleyball a couple of years ago. Girls were coming into the gym in their street clothes and just sort of changing right there. They'd have their shorts under their jeans, pull off their jeans, take off whatever top they were wearing and then pull their team jersey or t-shirt on. And I've seen girls at basketball games, when they're wearing those jerseys that are white on one side and colored on the other, strip off their jerseys, turn them inside out and put them back on. I expect there were some parents of some boys who thought this might be a bit much for teen-agers to handle. I know it makes my teen-age son uncomfortable. I'd be surprised if this rule wasn't to address this issue, at least a little.

Rainmaker, I don't think that is why they want to make this a technical foul. The article says they are removing the jersey out of frustration.

Besides, in a game by the time we get on the court the teams should be in warmups not changing into their uniforms...

The NF better clear up this situation or specify as to what they are talking about. I for one have never seen a player or can recall a player doing this. They need to make this clearer to those that are unaware of the practice. There will be officials that are thinking of this from Juulie's point of view if no other information is given.

Peace

I agree. When I first saw this I thought the intent was clear - to prevent players from yanking off their jersey in frustration. After reading Juulie's post I can now see how some people might want to start a rec/AAU game with 10 T's for players adjusting themselves in public simply because there's no locker room available.

I know that there are many "by the book" referees out there that will miss the intent and spirit of the rule. I forget which rule book I saw it in, but as officials we are supposed to use a certain amount of common sense. The intent of the rule is to eliminate the "Dennis Rodman"-like act of yanking off a jersey to show dissatisfaction with a call/no-call, or bringing attention to themselves, similar to when players used to do chin ups on the rim or slapping the backboard after a dunk. Not sure about everyone, but I can tell the difference between changing jerseys so that they are wearing the reversible correctly, or if the blood rule is in use versus the player that yanks their jersey out to show disgust or disagreement.

This is why there has to be clarification. I am not saying I cannot tell the difference between the acts. I think it is not clear outside of this article that this was then reason the rule was created. If you do not read the article (which many officials will not do), it will sound like any changing of a jersey is the reason they created this rule. What Dennis Rodman did would have gotten a T without this rule by me and many other officials.

Peace

Moving Screen
 

Will this mean that moving screen fouls by the offense will be non shooting fouls? I assume so.

Re: Moving Screen
 

Illegal screens will apply. I am not sure of moving screens. I am not sure what is illegal about a moving screen. :D

Peace

JRut,

We are in agreement. It just seems that in today's world, everyone wants things spelled out perfectly so they can say "its right here in the book." Next thing you know someone finds a loophole, it gets closed the next year, then there is another, then another, etc. Unfortunately, for some, basketball relies on good judgement. For the most part the rules are only meant to serve as a guideline not as black and white.

Perhaps rewording the change would be more appropriate. Something that refers to unsporting acts rather than a line by line of what is or isn't allowed. In reading the article, it is designed to address the unsporting acts of players pulling the jerseys out as a matter of disgust rather than "so and so was just changing their jersey." Like I said, I am in agreement with the unsporting nature of the action.

I know other people have expressed concerns from a modesty point of view, but these concerns should be handled by the schools not by the officials or the NFHS. Most schools have a code of conduct that the students sign, let them handle it.

[Edited by icallfouls on May 3rd, 2005 at 04:33 PM]

My point was that in volleyball, they WANTED the rule because of girls taking off their jerseys to change sides. It applies specifically to blood situations, and to before and after the match when girls might be changing to or from street clothes. Any basketball official who has done volleyball, and then sees girls OR boys changing in the gym, might not want to stick the kids, but might believe that this is what the Rules Committee was addressing. This official (me, for instance) might feel compelled to T kids up for this, even though it would go against the better judgment. If it's only for a kid yanking a jersey off in frustration at a call, it better say that in the rule change proper.

Rule 3-4-15 prohibits a team member from removing his or her uniform within the confines of the playing area.

Hmmmmm,
you want gray area?
How about the player that untucks his shirt in frustration as he walks to the bench after being called for his 5th foul?
Did he "remove his uniform"?

How about the player that pulls his shirt up and bites the tail end of it...exposing chest, tummy and a whole lot of skin as he walks to the bench in frustration?

Or the player that untucks his shirt and pulls it over his head in frustration?

I know I would handle some of these in a case by case basis...using common sense...and not needing a new rule to tell me when to whack um'. Although now it looks as if we are mandated by the NFHS to call the T for shirt "removal".

As a side note:
My philosophy is still the same...it's not what the player necessarily says that will earn them the T...it's HOW they said it, it's their ACTIONS that usually gets them whacked.

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches? [/B][/QUOTE]


Situation A, probably have to call a violation for running out of bounds, espcecially if it helped them to get in position for the steal!!!!

situation b, myself i probably have nothing...but they still want us to call it, even though no advantage was gained...this is the part i don't see.... if no advantage gained on the play i don't think we need to worry about it!!

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches? [/B][/QUOTE]


Situation A, probably have to call a violation for running out of bounds, espcecially if it helped them to get in position for the steal!!!!

situation b, myself i probably have nothing...but they still want us to call it, even though no advantage was gained...this is the part i don't see.... if no advantage gained on the play i don't think we need to worry about it!!

[/B][/QUOTE]

Jritch,

That's exactly what I was thinking. In sitch B, the rule seems to mandate a violation called. Because of such, I could definitely see an official calling the violation on Team B as A1 is blowing by B1 to the hoop for a layup....I'd like to see that one explained to a coach.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Situation A is not propbable nor much of an advantage. If there is a screen in the lane, then either A1 also went OOB around the screen (which should kill the play first) or B1 took a less effective path.

If A1 had gone on the inbounds side of the screener, B1's best path would have been that direction too. That path can't be legally cut off since any other A player stepping into that path would be guilty of a block if there is contact with B1. If B1 goes OOB, he's chosen a longer path to A1.

Well, I think in the situation B), there WAS an advantage gained by B1 because he was able to go outside the playing court and continue to be in position to guard A1. If he was forced to stay on the court and detour around the screen, A1 would probably be open. So, if B1 goes OOB, then gets back in position to guard A1 - violation. Now, if A1 does get by B1, what advantage does B1 have? If none, then I probably didn't see B1 go OOB.

Does any one know when the NFHS 2005-6 rule changes begin? Do we as basketball officials administer these changes beginning with their release date of 4/28/05 or at the start of high school basketball season?

I would guess that would be up to your state's HS association. In MA, we generally use our summer leagues to prepare the players and officials for the new season's rule changes.

Ok, thanks. And out here in CA, through the CBOA, we do the same for summer leagues in 1 of 3 associations that I am a member of but I was wondering if the NFHS has some sort of required active date for implementing new rules.

We utilize the changes during the summer so that all interested parties start to become familiar with them. My personal feeling is that there is an advantage in using them earlier rather than later, it helps the break in period during the season go quicker and smoother.

My contention in B is that B1 had a better choice...the inbounds side of the screen. By going OOB, B1 chose the more difficult and longer path to A1.

I agree, in most cases you're not going to see this. But you have to be prepared for that one time. Maybe there's the one time the defender is trailing A1 by a step or two, and as A1 runs the baseline the post player sets a screen after A1 goes by. If there are other players in the paint area, the only "clear" path might be OOB.

Like you said, in most cases if A1 is inbounds, the best path for B1 will also be inbounds. But don't let a player take advantage of the OOB area if the other team is setting good screens.

And if B1 is far enough behind to allow A2 to legally step into the path, then B1 is not really part of the play. The basket will already be scored by the time B1 gets back to A1.

I don't have my rulebook on me right now and I was just wondering and I am pretty sure of this but I was just wanting clarification.

If the screener has his foot out of bounds then of course he does not have inbound status therefore if contact occurs with the person getting screened then it is automatically a illegal screen. Right?

No. Being OOB only negates LGP. It doesn't mean automatic foul. It will most often be the case but not automatically.

Can you cite a case when it <b>won't</b> be an automatic foul on a defender who has a foot OOB when contact occurs?

Ah, but the rule change stated the rule was "Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the "playing court."

Setting a screen has nothing to do with legal guarding position.

Further, just because there's contact, it doesn't mean there's a foul. So I would agree with Camron that it's not automatically a foul.

Of course, the official can no-call it if he didn't think it was a foul. That wasn't what I was talking about. Let me be a little more specific then:

If a foul <b>is</b> called when the defender is standing OOB when the contact occured, is there ever a case when the foul would <b>not</b> on the defender? I'm not talking about flagrant fouls, unsporting acts- or anything like that. Just the normal block/charge call.

That's what I was wondering.

Hold on, I gotta copy and paste your answer somewhere else. :)

Okay, I understood what you were saying.

But I think you'll have to admit that you understood what I was saying in my reply concerning successive timeouts on the other board, eh?

Just a little paypack. :)

Can you cite a case where it is an automatic foul for being contacted OOB?

All the cases and clarifications that have been published all have one thing in common...a defender who is actively <em>guarding</em> a dribbler and steps OOB prior to contact. At the time the defender steps OOB LGP is lost and the liberties that come along with having LGP disappear. The rule that covers this is quite clearly in the section titled "Legal Guarding Posistion". It is not in the definition of a foul. Hence, the implications of being OOB have to do with LGP. If LGP is not a factor in the foul call, then being OOB has no bearing.

A screener is not subject to the requirements of LGP (e.g. never need to face the opponent) nor does a screener benefit from the liberties of having LGP (e.g. moving laterally at the time of contact). So, the definition of only having LGP while inbounds doesn't not apply to screens.

I can create several non-flagrant/non-intentional scenarios that make it quite clear that my point is the corrent and is born of common sense:

1. B1 is stationary and is talking to his coach while barely touching the boundary line (not violating the spirit of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) A1 running up sideline looking across the court for a possible pass to A2. A1 pancakes B1 and A1 goes to the floor. Can anyone honestly say they'll call a foul on B1? This is clearly a foul on A1.

2. A2 & B2 rebounding collidge such that their is no fould but such the A2 goes OOB, slightly. Before A2 can get back inbounds, B1, trying to get to the ball runs into A2. I don't see a foul on A2 here either.

[Edited by Camron Rust on May 8th, 2005 at 09:48 PM]