NFHS New Rules are posted

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by Junker

Who cares if a team goes to a stall? We don't get paid by the hour so I don't mind the clock running and me not having to run. Seriously though, in my area I don't see too many teams that really sit on the ball. I like not having a shot clock and allowing some teams to "take the air out of the ball" and make other teams play their tempo. It's nice to see some different styles of play.

_________________________________

AGREED! One of the most interesting thing I have ever seen was a HS girls V game between a run and gun team and a slow down team. Team 2 inbounded at the start of the second quarter, the girl dribbled to the arch and held the ball on her hip for 7:40, then they scored on a little back door alley oop play. 2 points the entire quarter. It also got into the first team's head and they never regrouped. Totally took them out of their game. A much less talented team walked away with a win because of "unique" strategy and the inability of a HC to make the proper adjustments to it.

As for the outstretched arms for not closely guarded... it's about time. It's a good signal that lets people know that you see it and are not just daydreaming.

[BillyMac]

From refnrev: "One of the most interesting thing I have ever seen was a HS girls V game between a run and gun team and a slow down team."

Many years ago, after officiating a junior varsity boys game between South Catholic (Hartford, CT) and Bristol (CT) Central, I stayed to watch the varsity game that followed, and decided to sit right behind the South Catholic bench, because I wanted to watch Coach Joe Reilly, who at the time was considered one of the best coaches in Connecticut.

Coach Reilly knew that he had an uphill battle. Bristol Central was ranked number one in the state and had a kid named Huckaby, who would later go on to star for Boston College, as well as a few other Division I prospects. Coach Reilly decided to run a stall offense. I couldn't believe how well coached and how patient his players, led by his point guard son, were. They were instructed to only take uncontested layups for the entire game. South Catholic lost that game 17 to 14, but could have won the game if they hadn't missed a wide open layup and a few foul shots. It was one of the most interesting, and exciting, games that I've ever observed. I believe that this was when the NFHS had the "lack of action" rule so South Catholic couldn't just hold the ball.

I know a lot of officials would disagree with me, probably the majority, especially those who officiate college ball, as well as high school ball, but I don't think that we need a shot clock in high school basketball. Just my, probably minority, opinion, for what it's worth.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I know a lot of officials would disagree with me, probably the majority, especially those who officiate college ball, as well as high school ball, but I don't think that we need a shot clock in high school basketball. Just my, probably minority, opinion, for what it's worth.

I agree 100%, for a number of reasons, but mostly because it adds a dimension of pressure to the offense that discourages the fundamentals of the game. If you look at the origins of the rule, it was to drive up scoring and encourage uptempo offenses, neither of which really have a basis in the origin of the game.

[181174]

4-42-5: Changing that a throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player

does the 5 second count still end when the player throwing the ball in bounds lets go of it or does this make the count stay on until its touched inbounds by another player?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by 181174

4-42-5: Changing that a throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player

does the 5 second count still end when the player throwing the ball in bounds lets go of it or does this make the count stay on until its touched inbounds by another player?

The rule change won't have any effect on the 5-second count. The count will still end when the throw-in pass is released.

[181174]

4-15-4d; 9-5-2: Changing that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

I am having a brain cramp here, does this mean if the offensive player gains control of the ball again does he/she have their dribble again? or is this a double dribble if they attempt to restart the dribble, sorry the season has been over a month or so now, little cloudy on this.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 181174

4-15-4d; 9-5-2: Changing that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

I am having a brain cramp here, does this mean if the offensive player gains control of the ball again does he/she have their dribble again? or is this a double dribble if they attempt to restart the dribble, sorry the season has been over a month or so now, little cloudy on this.

Yes, the offensive player can dribble again. Under a strict reading (or at least some strict readings) of the old rule, the player couldn't dribble again if the defensive player was accidentally touched by the ball and the offensive player regained control.

[181174]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 181174
4-42-5: Changing that a throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player

does the 5 second count still end when the player throwing the ball in bounds lets go of it or does this make the count stay on until its touched inbounds by another player?

The rule change won't have any effect on the 5-second count. The count will still end when the throw-in pass is released.
__________________
Okay thanks, so what is the purpose of adding "legally" to this rule on when a throw-in ends. I am not sure what the discussion about a kick ball is about, if the ball is kicked the play is dead and the ball is taken back out of bounds anyway. Just wondering why there needed to be a clarification here?

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by 181174

Quote:
Originally Posted by 181174
4-42-5: Changing that a throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player

does the 5 second count still end when the player throwing the ball in bounds lets go of it or does this make the count stay on until its touched inbounds by another player?

The rule change won't have any effect on the 5-second count. The count will still end when the throw-in pass is released.
__________________
Okay thanks, so what is the purpose of adding "legally" to this rule on when a throw-in ends. I am not sure what the discussion about a kick ball is about, if the ball is kicked the play is dead and the ball is taken back out of bounds anyway. Just wondering why there needed to be a clarification here?

If a throw-in was an AP throw-in, the clarifications helps. Suppose A1 is thowing in the ball and B1 kicks the pass. The old wording says the throw-in ends when touched by a player in bounds. Under the old wording there was some debate if the violation by B1 should supercede the touch in bounds and the switching of the arrow. The way it is worded now, if the Team B violates before the end of a throw-in (such as a kicked ball - an illegal touch), Team A retains the AP arrow and the subsequent throw-in by A is for the violation and not an AP throw-in. I hope that makes sense.

[181174]

Thanks, that does make sense. Though if that was the discussion before some people were putting way too much thought into the interpetation of the rule. I would think if you putting the ball in play bc of a held ball and team A has the ball for the throw-in bc of the arrow I wouldn't even think of wondering about the AP bc of a kick ball. I believe officiating is difficult enough without making it even more complicated. Just my opinion.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by 181174

Thanks, that does make sense. Though if that was the discussion before some people were putting way too much thought into the interpetation of the rule. I would think if you putting the ball in play bc of a held ball and team A has the ball for the throw-in bc of the arrow I wouldn't even think of wondering about the AP bc of a kick ball. I believe officiating is difficult enough without making it even more complicated. Just my opinion.

Maybe you'll find this more to your liking then...under the old wording where would you put the ball in play after the kick? At the spot nearest the kick or at the original spot?

[181174]

Good Question. I am not sure, I guess I would have taken it back out of bounds closest to where the kick happened, I would guess that would just be like if the defensive player knocked the ball out of bounds, you would put it back in play where it went out, so when its kicked you take the ball out closest to where the kick ball happened.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by 181174

Good Question. I am not sure, I guess I would have taken it back out of bounds closest to where the kick happened, I would guess that would just be like if the defensive player knocked the ball out of bounds, you would put it back in play where it went out, so when its kicked you take the ball out closest to where the kick ball happened.

Old rule - correct.
New rule - (by my reading) you'll go back to the original throw-in spot, as the throw-in hasn't ended.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Maybe you'll find this more to your liking then...under the old wording where would you put the ball in play after the kick? At the spot nearest the kick or at the original spot?

We had this discussion at a rules discussion before the season when we were required to take the new NCAA test. To me it seemed very simple. If the ball is kicked, the ensuing throw-in is awarded because of a violation, so it goes to the nearest spot of the violation. The offense would retain the arrow(I know with the new clarification -- not rule change-- it's easy now.)
I looked at it this way: If the offense violates on an AP throw-in, they lose the ball and the arrow. So why would the defense be rewarded with the arrow when they violate on a throw-in? This is not a rule change, even according to Struckoff. It is just a clarification for the the many officials who lacked the common sense necessary to interpret the rule. The NCAA rule on a throw-in states "legally touched" and there were still plenty of excellent NCAA officials who said they would switch the arrow in their game.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Old rule - correct.
New rule - (by my reading) you'll go back to the original throw-in spot, as the throw-in hasn't ended.

No no no no....
If the kick occurs at the division line, you're gonna take it back to the endline?
The next throw-in is a result of the kick, not the AP. If you go back to the original spot, it's like replaying the AP throw-in. And then the arrow would switch. You must take it out where the kick occurs.
I really don't understand what's hard about this. It's the same principle as a throw-in after a basket.... if the defense kicks the throw-in, the offense retains the right to run the baseline -- the throw-in never ended!!!