<b>JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i):</b> A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn’t require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations – even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

<b>THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7):</b> A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control. By rule, there is no team control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

<b>PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36):</b> The penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls has been changed from an alternating-possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition of “point of interruption” has also been added to the rules book. If the point of interruption cannot be determined e.g., unsuccessful try in flight, the alternating-possession arrow will be used. The committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul. Under the previous rule, if the alternating-possession arrow favored the defense, the defense would be awarded the ball, benefiting from the foul act. It is hoped that the change will increase the likelihood of double fouls being called when warranted.

<b>LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2):</b> The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

2005 Basketball Comments


Peace

I was completely correct about the jersey rule. I knew that they were going to expect players to go to the locker room to change their jersey even in situations with blood.

Peace

I saw this one coming last year at the rules interp. As already talked about, there remains the question about the defense, but I'm sure it will get answered.

I read the rule about changing a bloody shirt means a trip to the locker room. Let's say, Boy's freshman game. 1 coach. Player gets blood on jersey. 'Coach, take your player to the locker room, and we'll wait till you get back."? Or, let the player go to the locker room unattended??? I understand the rule, just administering it could be an issue. On one hand, we don't allow player's after they are disqualified to leave the bench area, or POE last year, to leave the bench to go get a drink of water, but this year, we send them to the locker room. It just seems inconsistent to me.

I think most of the officials in here have the presence of mind to recognize a shirt coming off in disagreement with a call, as opposed to a shirt coming off because there is blood on it.

A defender violates when leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, e.g.; A1 sets a screen along the endline for A2, then B1 runs around A1, going out of bounds while covering A2... Signal a violation B1.

A defender, B1 tries to establish LGP along the sideline, attempting to induce a charge call on A1, places one foot on the court and the other out of bounds... Signal a violation B1. Others may disagree that B1 left the confines of the court by placing one foot out of bounds, yet will it apply only with both feet clearly out of bounds?

But if a player accidentally leaves the court through no fault of their own, I wouldn’t penalize the player with a violation.

If one player is holding the ball, and steps out-of-bounds, it is a violation and the ball goes the other way. If that is true, how can you establish legal guarding position with one foot out-of-bounds. Anything outside of the lines is considered "off the legal playing surface", so even if it is one foot, IMO it should be a violation.

Let's use a little common sense here. What's the purpose of calling a violation on the defense for stepping OOB? It's nothing more than a game interrupter. "Well, let me see. Let me call this and give the ball right back to the offense."

It makes no sense and I bet the NFHS clarifes this to say so.

The whole reasoning behind the defender is what good is a violation going to do whenever the other team has the ball already.

I disagree about the violation on B1 when trying to establish LGP. IMO, it is not a violation, by rule it's a foul -- block.

bballrob,

I'm still looking for help on how to administer with a team with only one coach. Do we stop the game, so the coach can accompany the player back to the locker room to change? You shouldn't let the player leave the bench by him/her self. Single coach games are not that all uncommon at small schools, or when a team is on the road.

I hope the committee takes another look at this.

Good point. The old rule would issue a T to any player who left the court for unauthorized reasons. I was trying to show an example on how it would apply on a defender but I wrote B1 tried to establish LGP having one foot out of bounds. The new rule should prevent all players from playing outside of court boundary lines without issuing a T.
Right?

It may or may not be in the rulebook, but if you allow the minor to go unsupervised to the locker room, you are opening yourself up to possible legal ramifications if little Johnny or Suzie manages to hurt themselves while on their own. Frank has a valid point. Parents nowadays are looking to sue anyone and everyone they can, and a minor being unsupervised could leave the official in a bad situation, even though the official did not direct the player to leave the bench area.

Even if found not at fault, the process which the official would have to go through in order to maintain his/her lack of guilt would be very stressful, expensive, and time-consuming.

If we are going to change definitions, at least we could change the definition of team control to include throw-in.

Go figure...

The team has the ball in its possession...Can call time out(the other team cant)... If there is a foul on the inbounds play then we shoot 1+1 instead of the turnover. I think this is one that would be more consistent with the intent of the rule.

Agree. It sounds like the coach's problem to me. Grab a parent or somebody else handy. If they can't find a second adult to assist with such matters, that's not the ref's concern.

Coaches send kids to the locker room alone frequently. Have you never had a pre-game situation with a player wearing a white tee shirt under a dark jersey or vice versa?

There's nothing you can do if a coach wants to send a player to the locker room for any reason or if he let's him/her go to the lobby for some water.

Legal aspect
 

<b>It may or may not be in the rulebook, but if you allow the minor to go unsupervised to the locker room, you are opening yourself up to possible legal ramifications if little Johnny or Suzie manages to hurt themselves while on their own. Frank has a valid point. Parents nowadays are looking to sue anyone and everyone they can, and a minor being unsupervised could leave the official in a bad situation, even though the official did not direct the player to leave the bench area. </b>

There's nothing written or implied that says a referee is responsible for the supervision of players out in the halls, the lobby, the locker room, etc. Leave that stuff to the game administration. Somebody would have a heck of a time making a case stick that a referee was liable for a student leaving the gym.

Infractions are penalized in the order of occurance. In the style of this committees highly rigid rulings, when the defender leaves the court, the ball becomes dead and any subsequent contact is ignore unless intentional or flagrant.

Please check case 10.5. It outlines a referee's duties if he sends a player off the court."In such circumstances,the official should require the individual who has committed a flagrant foul to leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor." You don't send players off the court unattended.

And I think it was a POE last year about players leaving the bench during play, like for a drink of water or going unattended into hallways.

Put the rulebook aside for a minute. The rule book does not cover all the legal entanglements you can get in to. Letting players run around unsupervised because the referee told them to leave the court, is opening all sorts of liability issues. I'm trying to prevent them. So, for the third time, if I'm in a one coach game, and a player gets blood on their uniform, I let the coach accompany the player to the locker room to change his/her shirt??? And hold up the game till they get back?

I'm of the opinion, that is the prudent thing to do.

Frank beat me to it, but I was thinking about the same reference in the book when I read the earlier post asking where is it in the rules that you can't send the kid off unsupervised.

The federation clearly implies that the kids are to have adult supervision at all times while participating in NFHS sports.

Not only does it have to do with injury to the kid, but I'm sure that it has to do with an upset youngster causing damage to the lockerroom or getting into a fight with some other students who happen to get back there.

The POE last year said "Heading into the hallway to get a drink or sitting up in the stands with friends of family, even for a short period of time, are not authorized reasons <b>unless they are medically related</b>". I'd say that changing a shirt under the "blood" rule is medically related. Iow, I'd leave that one alone if the player went out into the hall by him/herself just to change a shirt.

I'm not sure we are sending the kid anywhere when there's blood on the jersey other than to the bench. Our responsibility is to keep the kid from playing. It's then up to the coach to decide if they want that kid to continue to play. If they do, then it's the coach's responsibility (and game mgt.) to make sure that kid has a safe trip to the locker room. We are not sending them anywhere except to the bench, so we have no liability when the kid is then sent to the locker room to change.

Thank you M&M. That is a great point.

Hear hear.

My big thing (because of the amount of jewlery rule violations present in intramural sports) is that no one has to take off/remove any jewlery, but no one is allowed to play if they're wearing any.

The usual response: "So, ref, you're making me take this off/out?"
Me: "Nope - your choice what to do."

Est-ce que tu parles anglais?

:D