New Rule comments

[JRutledge]

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i): 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.

THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7): 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.

PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36): 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.

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): 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

[JRutledge]

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

[tjones1]

Originally posted by JRutledge
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2):The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.


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.

[FrankHtown]

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.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by tjones1

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.

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 wouldnÂ’t penalize the player with a violation.

[SeanFitzRef]

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?

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by johnny1784

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 wouldnÂ’t penalize the player with a violation.

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.

[FrankHtown]

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.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by tjones1

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.

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?

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by bballrob

Where in the rulebook does it say that you can't send the kid to the lockerroom by himself to change his shirt?

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.

[Kelvin green]

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.

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by bballrob

Bottom line, it's really not our problem how the kid makes it to the locker room. Hell, I'm guessing that little johnny has a parent or someone that can accompany him to the lockerroom. No need for the coach to take him in if you want an adult to take him in. Coach should know the rules, and he needs to figure out how best to deal with it within the guidelines of the rules.

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.

[26 Year Gap]

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?

[BktBallRef]

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.