NFHS rule changes announced

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

Thanks, you just made my point.
You can find a passage which says to award the BONUS FT, but nothing stating to award the 1st FT.
The Bonus FT is defined as the 2nd attempt, not the first. The passage you have quoted above instructs the official as to when to award that.

Now please find something which says to line up the players for the first attempt! It's not there. It was inadvertantly removed when the definition of the bonus was changed by one of the wonderful editorial changes of Mary S. a few years ago.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

As Camron pointed out, the rule says that the team in control is last to touch the ball when the ball when the ball had frontcourt status. Otherwise, the situation where a A1 throws the ball from his backcourt, ball hits an official whom is located in the frontcourt, ball rebounds in the backcourt where the A1 recovers the ball wouldn't be a backcourt violation when in fact it is.

Actually, after further review, Altor is right on this.

9-9-1 states, in part, "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC before it went into the BC." The offensive team touching it in the FC is required for 9-9-1.

9-9-2 states, in part, "While in team control in it's backcourt..." Before this change, the "in its backcourt" portion was, essentially redundant. Now, however, it means the ball can bounce in the FC on a TI pass before going into the BC, and the TI team is not liable for a violation if they touch it (even without the exception that we all know is coming.)

The offensive player tipping the TI pass from the FC to the BC would, however, be a violation of 9-9-1 if a teammate is the first to touch it after it goes into the BC.

We're so used to the 4 requirements, they are somewhat changed by the fact that it's now possible for a team to be in control w/o FC or BC status.

[rsl]

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.

From the PDF file on the NFS Web site:

The specifications regarding arm compression sleeves were
changed to require the item to be white, black, beige or a
single solid school color, be the same color for each team
member and have only a single manufacturer’s logo that does
not exceed 2 ¼square inches. Arm compression sleeves
must still be worn for medical purposes.

[Nevadaref]

Here is the text of the rule changes which PASSED for this coming year.
This wording comes from the NFHS rule proposal form, which was considered by the committee. It is not from a copy of the NEW 2011-12 rules book.
Underlining shows additions; strikethrough shows deletions.

1-3-1

ART. 1...A 2-inch wide restraining circle shall be drawn at the center of the court with a radius of 6 feet measured to the outside edge. The edge of the circle shall be designated with a minimum of a ¼-inch wide single line but no wider than 2 inches. See Table 1-1, No. 3 if the use of contrasting colored-floor areas instead of a line is desirable. Spaces for nonjumpers around the center circle are 36 inches deep. Rationale: Many existing courts already have center circles that have a single ¼ -inch line. A mathematical line between two solid colors is also permitted in Table 1-1, Supplement to the Basketball Court, No. 3. This change would provide some consistency in the rule. Contrasting-colored language is consistent with the language used in 1-2-1. The permissive language in the Table 1-1, No. 3, get’s lost if not specifically referenced.

3-5-3 NEW

ART. 3…Arm compression sleeves shall: a. Be white, black, beige or a single solid school color. b. Be the same color for each team member. c. Be worn for medical reasons. d. Meet the logo requirements in 3-6. Rationale: Currently the rules for compression sleeves are vague, they may be multiple colors and players may each wear a different color. This will provide clarification; make enforcement of the rule consistent and more definitive for officials. The medical reasons portion is consistent with the previous rule.

4-12

ART. 1…A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. ART. 2…A team is in control of the ball: a. When a player of the team is in control b. While a live ball is being passed between teammates c. During an interrupted dribble d. When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in ART. 6…Neither team control or player control exists during a dead ball, throw-in, a jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal. Rationale: By changing the definition of player and team control to include a throw-in, greater consistency in the penalty for a common foul is achieved. As the rule is currently written, because there is no team control during a throw-in the penalty for a common foul committed by the throw-in team after the throw-in has started could result in free throws if the offended team is in the bonus. This is not consistent with the penalty for a team-control foul. This change would result in greater consistency in the penalties for common fouls, eliminate any confusion on rule application and speed up the contest by eliminating the delay inherent with administering free throws.

[Nevadaref]

My comments on the above three changes.

1-3-1: Proposed by Cindy Adsit from Washington
Was this a problem? Appears that schools were marking the center circle with a single line that was 1/4 inch wide. I've seen several courts which have the shadow lines for this circle, but these courts have two lines which are each 1/4 inch in width and form the outside boarders of a 2-inch wide strip. I guess the solution was to change the rule instead of making the schools with incorrectly marked courts comply.

3-5-3 NEW: Proposed by Bert Borgmann of Colorado
Makes the compression sleeves meet the same color and logo requirements as the headbands and sweatbands. The requirement to be worn for a medical reason was not removed, but no documentation of the medical need is required to be provided (that was a separate question considered by the committee which failed) [although individual state associations may require that on their own].
Many officials hate being the fashion police, but the colors of items worn by players in a fast-action game in a small area are important for quick recognition of both the players and officials, so I don't mind this addition.
We don't want players or officials being confused by the color of a sleeve for an quick pass or an OOB/foul call.
What is not clear from the provided text is if ALL three items (headbands, sweatbands, and arm sleeves) must now be the same color if worn or if only the headbands and sweatbands must match, but the arm sleeves can be a different permissible color as long as all team members have the same color.

4-12-1,2,&6: Proposed by Bert Borgmann of Colorado
Attempts to include fouls committed during a throw-in as team control fouls by altering the definition of player control.
The NCAA does it this way, so the NFHS naturally has followed suit a couple of years later. There is NO mention of disposal for a FT, only for a throw-in, nor was it stated that any of the backcourt rules were altered to account for this change. If the NFHS fails to follow the NCAA's lead in that part as well, it would be a grave mistake.

[Nevadaref]

I will make a similar post(s) for the editorial changes when I have more time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What is not clear from the provided text is if all three items (headbands, sweatbands, and arm sleeves) must now be the same color if worn or if only the headbands and sweatbands must match, but the arm sleeves can be a different permissible color as long as all team members have the same color.

Was it ever necessary that the color of the headbands and sweatbands match?

NFHS 3-5-3-A: Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or a single solid school color and shall be the same color for each item and all participants

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was it ever necessary that the color of the headbands and sweatbands match?

NFHS 3-5-3-A: Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or a single solid school color and shall be the same color for each item and all participants

Same color for each item could be re-written to say same color for both items but the FED does mean that the headbands must be the same color as the wristbands.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My comments on the above three changes.

1-3-1: Proposed by Cindy Adsit from Washington
Was this a problem? Appears that schools were marking the center circle with a single line that was 1/4 inch wide. I've seen several courts which have the shadow lines for this circle, but these courts have two lines which are each 1/4 inch in width and form the outside boarders of a 2-inch wide strip. I guess the solution was to change the rule instead of making the schools with incorrectly marked courts comply.

Obviously it was a problem, otherwise the rule change would not have been proposed and accepted.

The reason it came from Washington...over the last few years, a number of games have been played in venues other than the school gym. College courts, area arenas, etc. There have been issues where the center line was not marked according to NFHS rules, and losing teams have filed protests, etc. It's dumb, but this simple rule change takes care of the issue. It wasn't about the schools not having the right markings on the court, it was about the other venues.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Obviously it was a problem, otherwise the rule change would not have been proposed and accepted.

The reason it came from Washington...over the last few years, a number of games have been played in venues other than the school gym. College courts, area arenas, etc. There have been issues where the center line was not marked according to NFHS rules, and losing teams have filed protests, etc. It's dumb, but this simple rule change takes care of the issue. It wasn't about the schools not having the right markings on the court, it was about the other venues.

Sounds like a problem that the state office in Washington should have been able to deal with on its own.

Are you saying that the state association would give permission to use a venue with a court which isn't properly marked, and then either entertain or not want to be bothered by a protest from one of the participating teams?
1. That's clearly a problem of their own creation.
2. The NFHS rules very clearly state that no protests are allowed.
3. Seems as if Washington just had a national rule changed because it couldn't handle the courts in its own backyard.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was it ever necessary that the color of the headbands and sweatbands match?

NFHS 3-5-3-A: Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or a single solid school color and shall be the same color for each item and all participants

Yes, the headband color and the wristband color is required to match. Please consult page 3 of the 2010-11 Case Book, play ruling 3.5.3 situation part (b) "...Illegal equipment in (b); the headband color does not match the wristband color."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Was it ever necessary that the color of the headbands and sweatbands match? NFHS 3-5-3-A: Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or a single solid school color and shall be the same color for each item and all participants

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, the headband color and the wristband color is required to match. Please consult page 3 of the 2010-11 Case Book, play ruling 3.5.3 situation part (b) "...Illegal equipment in (b); the headband color does not match the wristband color."

LIST OF LEGAL HEAD/WRISTBAND COLORS EXPANDED (3-5-3A): In 2008-09
the rules stated headbands and wristbands must be a single solid color of white,
black, beige or a color similar to the torso of the jersey. The rule has been revised
to state that headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or a single
solid school color, provided all team members are wearing the same color for
each item for all participants. This rule change now permits team members to
wear headbands and wristbands of school colors.

3.5.3 SITUATION: Team A’s school colors are blue and gold and the predominate
color of Team A’s jerseys are white. Prior to the game, an official notices that
several Team A members are wearing (a) blue headbands and blue wristbands;
and (b) beige pre-wrap around the entire head and blue wristbands. RULING:
Legal in (a). Illegal equipment in (b); the headband color does not match the
wristband color. The official shall inform the player and the head coach that these
items are illegal and may not be worn during the game.

Thanks Nevadaref. I guess that James Bond was correct: "As long as the collar and cuffs match."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sounds like a problem that the state office in Washington should have been able to deal with on its own.

Are you saying that the state association would give permission to use a venue with a court which isn't properly marked, and then either entertain or not want to be bothered by a protest from one of the participating teams?
1. That's clearly a problem of their own creation.
2. The NFHS rules very clearly state that no protests are allowed.
3. Seems as if Washington just had a national rule changed because it couldn't handle the courts in its own backyard.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My comments on the above three changes.

1-3-1: Proposed by Cindy Adsit from Washington
Was this a problem? Appears that schools were marking the center circle with a single line that was 1/4 inch wide. I've seen several courts which have the shadow lines for this circle, but these courts have two lines which are each 1/4 inch in width and form the outside boarders of a 2-inch wide strip. I guess the solution was to change the rule instead of making the schools with incorrectly marked courts comply.

....

What's the problem with changing the rule? Is it really that big of a deal? As long as there is a clearly defined center circle I'm good.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My comments on the above three changes.


4-12-1,2,&6: Proposed by Bert Borgmann of Colorado
Attempts to include fouls committed during a throw-in as team control fouls by altering the definition of player control.
The NCAA does it this way, so the NFHS naturally has followed suit a couple of years later. There is NO mention of disposal for a FT, only for a throw-in, nor was it stated that any of the backcourt rules were altered to account for this change. If the NFHS fails to follow the NCAA's lead in that part as well, it would be a grave mistake.

Didn't need to be....it was already team control....player holding a live ball inbounds.

I agree with your point about the backcourt rules, however. If there is no change, there will be a problem. My guess is that they will be address in the case plays rather than the rule.