NFHS Rule Changes For The 2000-01 Season

[walter]

The new rule changes have been posted on the NFHS home page (www.nfhs.org). Besides the two 20 second time-outs being changed to 30 second timeouts, the other big change, in my opinion, deals with slapping the backboard. "Clarification of illegal contact on the backboard was written into Rule 10-3-6 by stating that a player shall not place a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage. A player also may not intentionally slap or strike the backboard or cause the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight, is touching the backboard, is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket." Sounds to me like the old adage, "if it is a legitimiate attempt to block a shot" may no longer apply. The way I read this is that if the board is slapped intentionally, (there they go asking us to judge intent again) regardless if it is an attempt to block or not, they want a technical foul called. I guess one way to judge is if a player's palm hits the board and it shakes in any way, they want us to call the "T". What do you guys think?

[Brian Watson]

I think it will depend on the state you live in. It is up to the states to present the "interpretation" of the rule. I hope OH will still allow us to use some common sense.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by walter:
Sounds to me like the old adage, "if it is a legitimiate attempt to block a shot" may no longer apply. The way I read this is that if the board is slapped intentionally, (there they go asking us to judge intent again) regardless if it is an attempt to block or not, they want a technical foul called.

---

I interpret the new wording as SUPPORTING that old adage. The clarification adds two parts, from what I can tell: 1) adding the RING as an appendage that cannot be grabbed to gain an advantage (in addition to putting a hand on the backboard), and 2) adding the word "intentionally." Adding this word, in my mind, is specifically telling us to only call a "T" when it is clear it was done on purpose when the ball is in flight during a try . . . (etc.) and NOT when it is part of an attempt to block that shot. Maybe the explanation that comes with the rule clarification will spell out the committee's intent more fully.

[Mr Ref BB]

I wouldn't punish a player or a team twice for one infraction. If the player smacks the backboard, and it vibrates, and alters the shot on the rim....I'm counting the basketball. I'm not going to give the kid a technical foul for this. The rule says this, but officiating is a job of using common sense. If a official counts the basket and gives the player a technical foul, be sure that he or she wouldn't be invited back to that school to officiate another contest

[bob jenkins]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Ref BB:
I wouldn't punish a player or a team twice for one infraction. If the player smacks the backboard, and it vibrates, and alters the shot on the rim....I'm counting the basketball. I'm not going to give the kid a technical foul for this. The rule says this, but officiating is a job of using common sense. If a official counts the basket and gives the player a technical foul, be sure that he or she wouldn't be invited back to that school to officiate another contest

---

You're counting the basket? I'm reading that to mean that it didn't go in. What is the rule that allows this?

And, if it did go in, of course you would count it. But, now if you don't give the T you're allowing an illegal act to go unpunished. When it happens at the other end in a slightly different circumstance, will you ignore it then as well?

[jimcrket]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob jenkins:
You're counting the basket? I'm reading that to mean that it didn't go in. What is the rule that allows this?

And, if it did go in, of course you would count it. But, now if you don't give the T you're allowing an illegal act to go unpunished. When it happens at the other end in a slightly different circumstance, will you ignore it then as well?

---

You would count the unmade attempt based on goaltending. I agree that if you don't penalize the act and it goes on, you have created a situation for yourself and the opposng team which will require more explanation when you do decide to call it than was necessary had you made the call initially. I hope the federation still believes that we are capable of exercising good judgement and know when an act is intentional or not. If they would require three man mechanics at the varsity level, this type of situation would be addressed with more frequency and could possibly eliminate it all together.

[jimcrket]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimcrket:
You would count the unmade attempt based on goaltending. I agree that if you don't penalize the act and it goes on, you have created a situation for yourself and the opposng team which will require more explanation when you do decide to call it than was necessary had you made the call initially. I hope the federation still believes that we are capable of exercising good judgement and know when an act is intentional or not. If they would require three man mechanics at the varsity level, this type of situation would be addressed with more frequency and could possibly eliminate it all together.

---

Incidentally, the rule would refer to basket interference specifically. As I interpret it, the backboard is a part of the "basket" and therefore any act which alters the position of the rim, basket or support and prevents a ball from having the opportunity to go through the hoop is interferring with the flight or path of the shot.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob jenkins:
The "basket" does not include the backboard. See 2-10-1. It was also in the definitions, until this (1999-2000) year.

---

I was wondering where it went, 'cuz I knew it had been in there previously! BTW, I think you mean see 1-10-1, not 2-10-1 (correctable errors).

[bob jenkins]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimcrket:

Originally posted by jimcrket:
You would count the unmade attempt based on goaltending. I agree that if you don't penalize the act and it goes on, you have created a situation for yourself and the opposng team which will require more explanation when you do decide to call it than was necessary had you made the call initially. I hope the federation still believes that we are capable of exercising good judgement and know when an act is intentional or not. If they would require three man mechanics at the varsity level, this type of situation would be addressed with more frequency and could possibly eliminate it all together.

---

Incidentally, the rule would refer to basket interference specifically. As I interpret it, the backboard is a part of the "basket" and therefore any act which alters the position of the rim, basket or support and prevents a ball from having the opportunity to go through the hoop is interferring with the flight or path of the shot.

Jim --

I'm a little unsure of whether you are proposing a rule change (i.e., "What you'd like to see if you were king"), or are discussing how to interpret the current rule.

If it's the former, then ignore the rest of this message.

If it's the latter, you are wrong, under NFHS rules.

The "basket" does not include the backboard. See 2-10-1. It was also in the definitions, until this (1999-2000) year.

So, contacting the backboard cannot be BI or goaltending -- whether that contact is incidental, accidental, intentional, deliberate, unsportsmanlike, ...

The shot counts, or not, on its own merits. The contact with the backboard is penalized, or not, on its own merits. It's two separate plays that happen at the same time.

See case 10.3.6 for more discussion.

I think the rule change is just to bring the rule in line with the case comment and to make it more clear what is to be penalized and how.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimcrket:

---

Incidentally, the rule would refer to basket interference specifically. As I interpret it, the backboard is a part of the "basket" and therefore any act which alters the position of the rim, basket or support and prevents a ball from having the opportunity to go through the hoop is interferring with the flight or path of the shot.[/QUOTE]

Gotta disagree with the last couple of interpretations. First, the backboard is NOT part of the basket--they are considered separately. Second, as Bob implied, there is no goaltending or basket interference with regard to slapping the backboard, and no room to use "common sense" to count the basket despite the rule. Casebook situation 10.3.6 is very specific that the basket does not count if it doesn't go in. Again, the clarification says "intentionally" slapping the backboard. So, at best, if the slap on a follow-through after a block attempt causes the basket or backboard to shake and results in the ball missing, your "T" explanation ought to indicate that you considered it an intentional act. If clearly not intentional, then it's simply a no call and play continues. (I see Bob beat me to the response, but I'll post my reply anyway to reinforce what he said.)