NFHS rule changes announced

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

The difference is TC would start, on a TI, when the official starts his 5 second count (RPP, purposeful delay following a made basket). On a FT, it really only affects offensive fouls committed during an RPP situation (which I've never even heard of on a FT).

If they do, they're likely to use reasoning that doesn't make any sense. ie, "legal because player control hadn't been established inbounds." I say it wouldn't make any sense, logically, because the reasoning wouldn't be based on the actual rules, since PC inbounds isn't required for the BC violations we're discussing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Not if the ball must be placed on the floor by the administering official, perhaps the RPP is being used.

For consistency, the committee should have handled the ball being at the disposal of a team in the same manner in all situations.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not if the ball must be placed on the floor by the administering official, perhaps the RPP is being used.

For consistency, the committee should have handled the ball being at the disposal of a team in the same manner in all situations.

Fair enough...for this very unusual case...one where a foul is even more unlikely than the setup itself.

In fact, if there was any foul at that point, I'd expect that it would be intentional or flagrant. Exactly how could someone be playing the ball with it setting on the floor on the FT line?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Fair enough...for this very unusual case...one where a foul is even more unlikely than the setup itself.

In fact, if there was any foul at that point, I'd expect that it would be intentional or flagrant. Exactly how could someone be playing the ball with it setting on the floor on the FT line?

No way to disagree with that.