NFHS rule changes announced

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I feel like the NFHS sometimes is just trying to find editorial "changes" and "clarifications" to try and justify a yearly publication of the rules and case book. Who the hell is having trouble differentiating between white and light blue, silver, gold?

And the NFHS is busy at it again making use the freaking fashion police. Now in addition to having it for "medical" reasons, we get to make sure it's the correct color! A freaking joke.

I'm guessing they've made this change so the restrictions are the same as for headbands. ie, no medical issue required.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I feel like the NFHS sometimes is just trying to find editorial "changes" and "clarifications" to try and justify a yearly publication of the rules and case book. Who the hell is having trouble differentiating between white and light blue, silver, gold?

And the NFHS is busy at it again making use the freaking fashion police. Now in addition to having it for "medical" reasons, we get to make sure it's the correct color! A freaking joke.

Guys who shouldn't be on the court any longer?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm guessing they've made this change so the restrictions are the same as for headbands. ie, no medical issue required.

If they did away with the medical reason, a joke to start with, I would be fine with the change. They just made a bad rule worse IMO.

[tref]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

If they did away with the medical reason, a joke to start with, I would be fine with the change. They just made a bad rule worse IMO.

Blame AI, he isnt even in the League anymore, but he left his fashion statement with the game.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm guessing they've made this change so the restrictions are the same as for headbands. ie, no medical issue required.

I understand why they did it...but my general stance is that officials shouldn't give a flip what color a headband, arm sleeve, or undershirt is but rather this should be a coaches issues. The only thing we should care about is safety related items. Adding color restrictions to anything just makes us more into policing fashion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

If they did away with the medical reason, a joke to start with, I would be fine with the change. They just made a bad rule worse IMO.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I understand why they did it...but my general stance is that officials shouldn't give a flip what color a headband, arm sleeve, or undershirt is but rather this should be a coaches issues. The only thing we should care about is safety related items. Adding color restrictions to anything just makes us more into policing fashion.

I'm with 26, if they do away with the medical restriction, it's a change for the better. If not, it's for the worse.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm with 26, if they do away with the medical restriction, it's a change for the better. If not, it's for the worse.

The change would only okay in that it would consistent with NF's other idiotic fashion police policies.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The change would only okay in that it would consistent with NF's other idiotic fashion police policies.

Can we just agree that Patrick Ewing & AI, (didn't both go to the same school?), have made us focus on stuff that should have been un-necessary?

Coach to above players: "That looks dorky. Take it off or you've got extra laps."

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Can we just agree that Patrick Ewing & AI, (didn't both go to the same school?), have made us focus on stuff that should have been un-necessary?

Coach to above players: "That looks dorky. Take it off or you've got extra laps."

That's my point. Personally, I had no problems with what Patrick Ewing and Allen Iverson wore (I was playing basketball during his prime). It should be the coach that mandates whether or not their team is allowed to wear these accessories and what restrictions should be placed on it. If the coach wants to mandate everyone where the same color head band, put it on him. If he doesn't want a player to wear a wristband above the elbow, mandate it. A player doesn't want to conform, BENCH HIM. You better believe he's shape up quickly *gasp* most players WANT TO PLAY!

All the NF has done is pass the buck on to us...probably because some coaches didn't (wo)man up and lay the law down.

[Adam]

When did head band restrictions come into play? I know they pre-date AI, but Ewing is before my time. The arm sleeves, however, whole other story.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When did head band restrictions come into play? I know they pre-date AI, but Ewing is before my time. The arm sleeves, however, whole other story.

Headband colors were since I came back to the game during the 2003-04 season. Ewing was the t-shirt guy. Maybe that section of the rule book should be dedicated to John Thompson.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Headband colors were since I came back to the game during the 2003-04 season. Ewing was the t-shirt guy. Maybe that section of the rule book should be dedicated to John Thompson.

I remember my playing days in the 80s and 90s, and I'm pretty sure the t-shirt colors were regulated then. I thought the wrist and head bands were, too. I have no problem with the t-shirt color reg. It actually makes more sense and is easier to enforce.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I remember my playing days in the 80s and 90s, and I'm pretty sure the t-shirt colors were regulated then. I thought the wrist and head bands were, too. I have no problem with the t-shirt color reg. It actually makes more sense and is easier to enforce.

But, nobody even WORE tee shirts until Ewing started doing so. Colors on headbands, wristbands, etc. are more recent than your playing days.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

But, nobody even WORE tee shirts until Ewing started doing so. Colors on headbands, wristbands, etc. are more recent than your playing days.

You might be right about the t-shirts, but I wore one and wasn't even aware that Ewing did. I did it because I had skinny arms as a kid.

As for the bands, shut up.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Any TI pass that gains FC status before it goes into the BC (being tipped by a FC player or bouncing in the FC) would be subject to violation if the TI team is the first to touch it after it goes into the BC.

Citation?

Going by this past year's rules (9-9-1 and 9-9-2), team control must exist in the frontcourt or backcourt as a requirement for a backcourt violation. Frontcourt and backcourt are defined as being in-bounds (4-13), so if rules 9-9-1&2 aren't altered, the requirements for a backcourt violation still would not be met, since team control would have been out of bounds in your sitch.

That said, I see that 9-9-3 would need tweaking, as there's a reference to no team control on a throw-in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Released by the NFHS today:

The committee also approved an editorial change to Rule 9-2-10, Penalty 4 to clarify that when an opponent contacts the thrower-in, an intentional foul will be charged to the offender. The defender will not have to have broken the plane to be charged with an intentional foul.

That is NOT an editorial change...

Old rule...

If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

This is a rule change, not an editorial change. It changes the penalty for fouling a thrower from a common foul to an intentional foul.

Additionally, it oesn't make any sense. If the defender can legally play the ball, they shouldn't be at risk of an intentional foul if they miss the ball and hit the arm....that is just not right.