NFHS rule changes announced

[26 Year Gap]

Although only a recommendation, the light blue, light gold, silver uniform color issue seems like the creation of a problem where there was none.

And instead of making sleeves legal or illegal, they took the worst of both worlds. Legal, but must comply with headband rules AND be medically necessary. I hope the guys on the committee pushing for these two items will not be on next year's committee.

[APG]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

“Even though there’s growing interest in using a shot clock, the general sense from the committee is that the time isn’t right,” Struckhoff said. “Given the current economic climate, it would be difficult for schools to comply with a rule requiring purchasing new equipment and hiring additional table personnel.”

Count me in...though I do agree that the timing isn't right, right now. Sounds like to me, that we will be having a shot clock at some point in the future (distant but not too distant) at the NFHS level.

[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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 that doesn'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.

I believe that is a T if they reach through the plane and contact the ball. Unless you are referring to the thrower reaching the ball and his arms over the plane to be inbounds.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I believe that is a T if they reach through the plane and contact the ball. Unless you are referring to the thrower reaching the ball and his arms over the plane to be inbounds.

We are, the rule change means, essentially, that it's legal to play the ball when it's reached through the plane, but contacting the thrower's arm is an intentional foul. They may as well make it a T to contact the ball while it's in the thrower's hands regardless of whether the ball is on the backside of the plane.

Industrious players could easily take advantage of this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by camron rust

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 that doesn'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.

+1