NFHS rule changes announced

[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.