New Fed basketball Rules--2008/09
 

This is now posted on this site as an article, but there is nothing on the NFHS site as of yet backing it up.

http://basketball.officiating.com/x/article/5800

Changes are:
1) Bottom spaces left open on free throws.
2) Technical foul charged directly to head coach for illegal shirts, numbers, instead of to the player. The article doesn't state whether there would be one "T" maximum or one for each violation.
3) usual crap about headbands.

The rules changes are now posted on the NFHS site as follows:

http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmana...es_Summary.pdf

I am sure that more information is to come.

Okay, editorial changes include:
1. reorganization of 3-4.
2. 4-27-2, incidental contact tweaked.
3. 4-42-5. They changed this last year, too. I wonder what change they're making.
4. 10-5 to be reorganized for clarity. This will be interesting.

Now, I wonder if there are any unannounced changes this year.

All in all, they seem to have left the rules alone, for the most part.

They're not reducing the number of players in the lane, just moving them away from the basket and toward the shooter.
Taunting by whispers now. Thanks.
If NF wants to clean up the lane, enforce the violation for breaking the plane before the ball hits the rim. It's the positioning as the ball's in the air that causes the problem.

I don't care about the color of the pre-wrap! :mad:

One T per coach/team for illegal jerseys.

I'm kind of surprised they caved in on the free throw. Although, they used a different rationale (preventing rough play); everything they had stated in the past didn't support the change. Oh well...

Any idea on when we'll see any mechanics changes?

I caught that, too. It seemed they even said previously that rough play wouldn't even be affected. The rationale this time even uses "may" as a qualifier. My guess is if it doesn't have the desired effect, they'll revert back in a couple of years.

I bet the illegal uniform infractions will be slim to none next season, seeing how a coach will be in the seatbelt before the tip off.

I think for the first time in 8 years, and 16,000 posts, Jurassic has started a thread.

Just like in College......about the lane spaces.

Nah, he's started 27 threads, although 8 of those were not in the basketball forum. http://forum.officiating.com/search.php?searchid=103291

I think last year or the year before they even said that they were done even considering any changes to the free throw rules because of the Kentucky study. Oh well.

And surprisingly only 2 of them (7%) have been locked.

It's that kind of mean spiritedness that makes people cry.

I'm simply repulsed!

Repulsed, I tell ya!

mods... what is the forum policy on plagiarism?

why would they make this change without letting them in on the release?

i don't understand the change if they don't allow them in on the release.

won't it really diminish the chance of an offensive rebound?

Forced to watch 10 straight hours of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

It's true, it's true! :D

"they" want the defense to get the FT rebound so it's a good thing.
In fact that's part of the reason ncaa men's went to that lineup, decreases the odds of offensive rebounds.

As long as decent people aren't hurt....

no offense to anyone, but when was the last time Kentucky was an accurate barometer for what was going on in the rest of the country :) :D :p

I sometimes wonder how long it's going to be before a state like texas just starts adopting NCAA rules. w/o a shot clock.

Well all of those people wised up & moved on years ago.

I think the answer to your question is yes, and I also wonder why they didn't change the restriction on entering the lane to the release, instead of the rim.

From my perspective, this change essentially returns the chances of a defensive rebound to a point close to where it was when less contact was allowed.

Since I've always had a thing for Jane Seymour, I'm in! :D

Especially since they've just opened up a lane space for me to stand in for the first of two free throws ;)

From the officiating.com article: "The committee reviewed data from the Georgia High School Association, which experimented with the free-throw lane change last year. According to data from the experiment, the number of fouls during free-throw rebounding action was reduced," said Mary Struckhoff, NFHS assistant director and staff liaison to the Basketball Rules Committee. "At the same time, defensive rebounding percentages fell within an acceptable range. This data was the most compelling the committee had seen to date."

I guess you can just keep doing studies until you find one that makes everybody happy?

POE on slapping the backboard. I wonder what they're going to say on this? Too many officials calling it GT/BI? Not enough officials calling it a T? I'm all atwitter with anticipation :D

POE 5 is "Officials' Mechanics and Signals". My guess is this year they'll just be bagging at us to do what they tell us. ;)

HEY NOW! :p

I'm from Houston... which sometimes feels like its own state... LOL. But we've already done it in Football.

I would be for it, not sure what they would do about NCAA-M vs NCAA-W rules and which ones to use though. If Texas is already using NCAA rules for football, it is probably just a matter of time before they follow suit in basketball.

in houston - theres enough division amongst the officials (those who work just W or just M that it could be possible.) but in the grand scheme of things - this could be dangerous.

After spending much of the last 6 years in Kentucky, I would think that anyone with any sense of self-awareness would agree the NFHS might not have picked the best state to represent the entire country. But how can we argue, we are just the officials that get to call the games and have to deal with the rules outcomes.


However, I have talked to many of my peers around this area and they support the players being moved to above the block on free-throws. I personally don't have an opinion on it though.

-Josh

The way the rule has been the last few years, the offensive player in the second lane space actually had the best chances of getting the rebound - and I'm sure we've all seen that in games. This way, the defensive player has that spot and now has the reaction time to allow them to get the rebound. Not allowing them in on the release cuts down the amount of contact - so the rules committee takes care of two concerns - the amount of "rough" play and the number of offensive rebounds on free throws.

The three main changes that were made are excellent. There were a few other items that I would have liked to have seen implemented (coach's ability to request TO during a live ball), but I'll just do what Cubs fans do and wait 'til next year. ;)

Will the POE on mechanics and signals mean the stocks for any official who uses the Dracula mechanic?

Dracula mechanic? :confused:

Would that also be known as the "creeping death foul?"

As I read the presser, the number of players is the same. They've just moved.

Or is it the "Frankenstein Mechanic" for "over the back"! If so, I'm in with the punishment fitting the crime! ;)

That suggests that there were more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds?? I have not seen that to be the case. Perhaps there are more offensive rebounds than when players entered on the release. Perhaps there are more than what the NCAA was observing after moving the players up the lane....but not a majority to the offense.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't see the offensive team rebound a FT nearly as often as the defensive team. But then the Kentucky study and the Georgia study seem to have produced different results. So maybe things are different in Seattle too?

Dracula Mechanic
 

http://images.art.com/images/-/Bela-...C10104353.jpeg

Yes I know there would be no shadow if the guy was a REAL vampire.

Don't real vampires only work baseball? :confused:

just night games

Seriously??? That's definitely NOT what I have seen...anything that has a soft bounce off the rim is usually controlled by the inside player, but if it takes a wild bounce or a longer bounce, the player in the second space has more time to react and usually gets that rebound.

I see those wild/long bounces going sometimes to the 3rd player even....back to the defense.

I guess it also depends on the local standard of how much contact is allowed from each player and which player benefits from the specific contact that is allowed (or vice versa).

Maybe it's the thin air up here in the mountains? :D

I'm going to make a more concious effort in my games this week to tally who gets the rebounds. But I'd be surprised if it's different than my current perception.

Make a concious effort to tally the number of times the defensive player in the first position gets pinned near or under the backboard by the offensive player just holding his space off the missed FT (what the coaches call boxing out). That is what the ncaa m wanted to eliminate simply because they felt that not enough of the rebounds went to the defense. Not at all the majority went to the offense, just that the offense was getting more than they should. And it worked IMO. Granted it's not as clear under nfhs rules where they can't move off the release, but obviously the fed thought this was a good idea so there you have it. Not a bad change IMO.

Is the new rule that permits beige uniforms called the George Carlin Rule?

It seems that Dan shares your thin air spelling. :D

It's how they're teaching it at camps this year ;)

Maybe in Utah....

I'm confused. What "new rule ... permits beige uniforms?"

Certainly no new rule of fashion or good taste. :eek:

It's not for uniforms, it's for hair control devices:

So a beige headband is now legal. Does that mean beige sweatbands are legal? If not, then if a player is wearing beige pre-wrap as a hair-control device, can her teammates wear white sweatbands?

Thanks, that's what I thought.

It's the same as the NCAAW rule. All "hair control devices" must be the same color, and that color can be black, white, beige or the predominant unifom color.

IF there needs to be a rule (and I would be okay with "no color restrictions"), then I think this change is good.

I vote no color restrictions. ;)

But can the hair control devices be different from the sweatbands? In Men's rules, it doesn't matter which legal color you use for headbands or sweatbands; but everybody on the team has to be wearing the same color for ALL those items.

So, under the new FED rule, if a player is wearing beige or black pre-wrap to hold her hair, is her teammate allowed to wear white sweatbands? Or does the new rule make beige legal for sweatbands too?

My impression from what they've released, and we haven't seen the new text yet, is that beige and black are now valid colors, along with white and the pred. color of the jersey. And I would assume (you know where that gets us) that they're all lumped into one category. So everybody who wears any kind of sweat band or circumcranial hair control device, must all wear the same color.

My best guess and $0.02

I would ***-U-ME the same

The Names Nave Been Changed to Protect The Innocent ...
 

Since the NFHS is increasing our role as the "Fashion Police", do we get badges?

http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/files/ima....thumbnail.jpg

By the way, as a former player, and coach, I'm all for players looking "uniform", after all, they're part of a team, and remember, "There's no I in team", but, for the most part, "fashion" issues should be the coach's, or athletic director's, job, not the officials job. On the other hand, some consider officials to be the caretakers of the game. This issue gives me an overly officious official headache. I need to take a couple of aspirOOOins.

Badges!? Badges!? We don't need no stinking badges!

"I Don't Have To Show You Any Stinkin' Badges!"
 

Snaqwells: Great Line. Thanks for reminding me about one of the greatest lines in movie history.

From "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" with Humphrey Bogart. In one of the scenes in the movie a Mexican bandit leader (Gold Hat played by Alfonso Bedoya) is trying to convince Fred C. Dobbs (played by Bogart) and company that they are the Federales.

Dobbs: 'If you're the police where are your badges?'
Gold Hat: 'Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZ...eature=related

I was quoting Blazing Saddles. ;)

I was thinking UHF.

Oh wait... that is "badgers, we don't need no stinkin' badgers."

It's Not Hedy, It's Hedley. Hedley Lamarr.
 

One of my alltime favorite movies.

In the 1974 Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles, probably the most famous parody of the line is delivered. Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) is interviewing a line of criminals in order to deputise them so that they can terrorize a town. The line is filled with stereotypical criminals, from bikers to robed Klansmen. A group of Mexicans dressed in sombreros and bandoleros step up to him. He speaks to them briefly, hires them and tries to hand them deputy badges: "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE&NR=1

"These floors are dirty as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more."
 

:) Once upon a time I actually went to see Weird Al in concert. Massey Hall in Toronto, circa 1997.

The full text of the rule changes and POEs has been posted on the NFHS website:

2008-09 Rule Changes and POEs

Sorry Smitty, but those are only the comments on the rule changes, not the actual text that will appear in the new rules book. However, what is written there for the POEs probably is the actual wording that will make it into the book.