NFHS rule changes announced

[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 bainsey

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.

No book with me, so I'm going off memory here.

1. TC begins when the ball is at the thrower's disposal. So TC condition is met.
2. FC status begins with the ball enter's the FC of the team with control. Ball status is determined by it's last point touching either the floor or a player, so a ball bouncing in the TI team's FC would gain FC status.
3. BC status would be gained when the ball bounced or is touched by a player in the BC.
4. Any TI team member who touches the ball at this point would commit a violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

If team control exists (and it will starting with the throwin) and the ball touches in the FC/BC, team control will exist in the FC/BC. Team control doesn't require that a player be holding the ball at the moment. Team control, once it starts, persists until their is a try, a dead ball, or the other team gains control.

The NCAA rule has exceptions for these scenarios that effectively state that the BC rules don't apply until there has been player control in either the frontcourt or backcourt.

I think a better overall solution would be to define a new foul to apply during a throwin but not call it team control.

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by NFHS rule changes

6-4-3e, g & Note
Alternating-possession throw-in situations were clarified.

Rationale: Current items e. and g. were inaccurate given the point of interruption procedure in 4-36. The Note was also clarified.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Can someone please post how these rules are currently worded?

Call me Someone.

Originally Posted by current rule

...An AP throw-in shall result when:

e. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.

g. Double personal, double technical or simultaneous fouls occur and the POI is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

NOTE: If the AP procedure has not been established, the jump ball shall be between the two players involved in the center restraining circle.

[Camron Rust]

NFHS Definition of Editorial Change: Someone on the committee always called it that way and by calling it an editorial change, they can feel like they were right all along.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

NFHS Definition of Editorial Change: Someone on the committee always called it that way and by calling it an editorial change, they can feel like they were right all along.

Two thumbs up.

[Nevadaref]

We have that dult, Mary Struckhoff, to thank for the poor change in the ruling for a foul occurring inside the boundary line against a thrower.

I'll post the exact text that she wrote as a proposal for the NFHS committee on this one. It demonstrates how poor her personal rules knowledge actually is.

[Nevadaref]

Removing 8-7 from the rules book will eventually prove to be a huge mistake. It was greatly useful in teaching new officials how to administer the game.

[Nevadaref]

If they wanted an editorial change that was meaningful, then they should have added something to instruct officials to award the first FT for common team fouls 7, 8, and 9 in each half.

Right now there is nothing in the book that says to award that first FT in bonus situations!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JBleach85

...but this will make the game better as it should stop the push offs and clear outs for positions that some players like to utilize while doing an in bounds play.

This rule change will not make any difference with regard to eliminating these fouls. Players won't be anymore aware of the rule change that my daughter's cat.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JBleach85

This is great news to hear that there is now team control on a throw in when the ball is at the disposal of the player making the throw in. Having this rule in place might be difficult for coaches to understand at the beginning of the season but this will make the game better as it should stop the push offs and clear outs for positions that some players like to utilize while doing an in bounds play.

I missed this before, but how in the world will reducing the penalty reduce the occurances?

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

This rule change will not make any difference with regard to eliminating these fouls. Players won't be anymore aware of the rule change that my daughter's cat.

And then there's that....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If they wanted an editorial change that was meaningful, then they should have added something to instruct officials to award the first FT for common team fouls 7, 8, and 9 in each half.

Right now there is nothing in the book that says to award that first FT in bonus situations!

Summary of Penalties for All Fouls
3. Bonus free throw:
a. For seventh, eighth and ninth team foul each half, if first free throw is successful.
b. Beginning with 10th team foul each half whether or not first free throw is successful.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Removing 8-7 from the rules book will eventually prove to be a huge mistake. It was greatly useful in teaching new officials how to administer the game.

I must have overlooked something in the press release because I did not see anything that said they got rid of 8-7. It seems like they changed something dealing with penalty administration, but no indication they got rid of that rule. I think we would need to see what the actual change or clarification is first.

Peace