NFHS rule changes announced
 

Released by the NFHS today:

Penalties for fouls during throw-ins have been changed in high school basketball, effective with the 2011-12 season. The throw-in revision, as well as several other rules changes and editorial revisions, were approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Basketball Rules Committee at its April 11-13 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes recommended by the committee were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

Definitions within Rules 4-12-1, 4-12-2 and 4-12-6 were changed to reflect that team control will now exist during a throw-in once the thrower-in has the ball at his or her disposal. The new rule will no longer grant free throws to the defending team in the bonus if the throw-in team commits a foul.

“The advantage was too great because the throw-in team would lose possession and yield free throws under the previous rule,” said Mary Struckhoff, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the Basketball Rules Committee. “It was inconsistent with how this same play was being administered during non-throw-in situations.”

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.

The committee edited Rule 1-3-1 to reflect the current basketball court design, which many high schools already use. The rule now permits at minimum a ¼-inch-wide single line and a line no wider than 2 inches for the center circle.

The committee also added Rule 3-5-3, which provides guidelines for arm compression sleeves. Sleeves may be white, black, beige or a single solid school color, and all sleeves must be the same color for each team member. Also, any manufacturer’s logos must not exceed 2¼ inches square.

In addition to the throw-in change to Rule 9-2-10, the committee approved several other editorial revisions, including reorganizing the definition of an intentional foul, clarifying when an alternating-possession throw-in shall be administered and clarifying penalty administration for when single fouls occur as part of a multiple free-throw situation.
Two other editorial changes to the Basketball Rules Book are ones that the NFHS Board of Directors has approved for use in all NFHS rules books.
The first rule extends the clerical duties of officials beyond the end of the game through the completion of any reports required from actions that occurred while the officials had jurisdiction.
The second authorizes state associations to grant exceptions to NFHS playing rules for participants with disabilities, special needs or extenuating circumstances.
Struckhoff said the committee again discussed requiring the use of a shot clock in high school basketball, as it has done for several years, but the committee did not approve the proposal.

“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.”

A complete listing of all rules changes approved by the committee is available on the NFHS Web site at NFHS | National Federation of State High School Associations. Click on “Athletics & Fine Arts Activities” on the home page, and select “Basketball.”

I wonder what this one is?

Can someone please post how these rules are currently worded?

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.

The real problem, for me, was when I grabbed a foul off-ball determining whether the foul was during team control or not. Not looking at the ball made it tough to know for certain in one or two cases the past couple of years. Now it won't matter anymore.

Can we assume correctly that the new team-control rule will not affect any backcourt rules? From what I can see in 9-9, the rules state the team control must exist in the frontcourt or backcourt (as opposed to out of bounds) as a violation requirement.

I really don't like this one.

No, you can't assume that. It won't affect whether a throw-in can be thrown directly to the backcourt, but without adjustments or exceptions, it will affect whether tipped TI passes or bounced TI passes are violations.

Any TI pass that gains FC status before it goes into the BC (being tipped by a FC player or bouncing in the FC) would be subject to violation if the TI team is the first to touch it after it goes into the BC.

Because the ball is available to the defender if the thrower-in breaks the plane?

It is consistent with the NCAA rules, though. (That doesn't make it "right", it just explains it a bit.)

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to assume they'll mimic the NCAA wording.

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.

Exactly. The defender can legally play the ball, but the consequences are higher if he misses than on a regular play.

Interesting.

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.

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. :rolleyes: Now in addition to having it for "medical" reasons, we get to make sure it's the correct color! A freaking joke.

I'm guessing they've made this change so the restrictions are the same as for headbands. ie, no medical issue required.

Guys who shouldn't be on the court any longer?

If they did away with the medical reason, a joke to start with, I would be fine with the change. They just made a bad rule worse IMO.

Blame AI, he isnt even in the League anymore, but he left his fashion statement with the game.

I understand why they did it...but my general stance is that officials shouldn't give a flip what color a headband, arm sleeve, or undershirt is but rather this should be a coaches issues. The only thing we should care about is safety related items. Adding color restrictions to anything just makes us more into policing fashion.

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.

The change would only okay in that it would consistent with NF's other idiotic fashion police policies.

Can we just agree that Patrick Ewing & AI, (didn't both go to the same school?), have made us focus on stuff that should have been un-necessary?

Coach to above players: "That looks dorky. Take it off or you've got extra laps."

That's my point. Personally, I had no problems with what Patrick Ewing and Allen Iverson wore (I was playing basketball during his prime). It should be the coach that mandates whether or not their team is allowed to wear these accessories and what restrictions should be placed on it. If the coach wants to mandate everyone where the same color head band, put it on him. If he doesn't want a player to wear a wristband above the elbow, mandate it. A player doesn't want to conform, BENCH HIM. You better believe he's shape up quickly *gasp* most players WANT TO PLAY!

All the NF has done is pass the buck on to us...probably because some coaches didn't (wo)man up and lay the law down.

When did head band restrictions come into play? I know they pre-date AI, but Ewing is before my time. The arm sleeves, however, whole other story.

Headband colors were since I came back to the game during the 2003-04 season. Ewing was the t-shirt guy. Maybe that section of the rule book should be dedicated to John Thompson.

I remember my playing days in the 80s and 90s, and I'm pretty sure the t-shirt colors were regulated then. I thought the wrist and head bands were, too. I have no problem with the t-shirt color reg. It actually makes more sense and is easier to enforce.

But, nobody even WORE tee shirts until Ewing started doing so. Colors on headbands, wristbands, etc. are more recent than your playing days.

You might be right about the t-shirts, but I wore one and wasn't even aware that Ewing did. I did it because I had skinny arms as a kid. :D

As for the bands, shut up.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+1

Call me Someone.

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. :eek:

Two thumbs up.

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. :mad:

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. :(

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.

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! :eek:

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.

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

And then there's that....

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.

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

The pdf file on nfhs.org says 8-7 is deleted because it became unnecessary.

OK, I did not see the PDF file. I was only looking at what the site listed. Thank for the clarification.

Peace

So now what's the call?
 

If TC now exists from the beginning of the throw in, what's the call in these instances. I know we've kind of discussed them above, but let's get specific.

Play 1) A1 to inbound in front court. A1 throws the ball to A2. It hits A2 in the hand and goes into BC where it is first touched by A2. Violation?

Play 2) A1 to inbound in front court. A1 throws the ball to A2. It hits the floor in front court and then goes into back court without having touched a player where it is first touched by A2. Violation?

Play 3) A1 to inbound in front court. A1 throws the ball to A2 who is in the back court and A2 catches the ball there. Is there an exception to allow this like there is in NCAA (as I am told)?

Note that neither of these is a violation under the "current" rules.

Technically we can't answer that until we see if NF has added the appropriate exceptions. Assuming NFHS goes the easy route and just adopts the rule as is from NCAA, none of the plays would be violations.

I do think it safe to say that even though we haven't seen the actual rule changes and exceptions, these will also not be violations under NFHS.

Again the NCAA exceptions that allow all of this:

Rule 7, Section 6 Throw-in

Art. 7. When the ball is located out of bounds, the thrower-in may pass the ball into the back court.
Art. 8. Regardless of where the throw-in spot is located, the throw-in team may cause the ball to go into the back court.
Art. 9. After the throw-in ends, an inbounds player in the front court who is not in control of the ball may cause the ball to go into the back court.

Mark, I do not think any of us are going to know for sure until we see the actual rules written. I have to think that the rules will mirror the college level which does not appear to have any of these situations as a BC violations based on the way they write their rules. Not saying they will not screw this up, but it appears they have taken on the NCAA philosophy which only created the rule to include the throw-in for TC foul purposes.

Peace

Without appropriate exceptions, 1 and 2 would be violations if TC is added to the throw in.

#3, however, would not change, since the BC and FC are both defined as being in bounds.

I fully expect them to mirror the language of the NCAA, but you never really know.

I would be shocked if they did not understand the ramifications of this change.

Peace

Doesn't Rule 9-9-1 require the offense to be the last to touch the ball in the front court for there to be a violation? As such, I don't see how situation #2 is a violation. As you said, the front court is in bounds. The last player to touch the ball was out of bounds.

(full disclosure: basketball layman, just looking for clarificiation)

Look at 9-9-2 if you have a book. I'll check tonight, otherwise.

9-9-2 is about a ball going from the back court to the front court to the back court without an intervening touch. It wasn't in the back court originally. It was out of bounds.

No. The rule doesn't require that the offense touch the ball IN the front court, just that they be the last to have touched the ball when the ball was in the frontcourt....that touch may have been elsewhere.

When the ball bounced in the frontcourt, who was the last to have touched it? A1.

I wouldn't be.

I am not saying they will not screw it up, just saying I think they would not be aware of the fact that changes and exceptions would have to be made.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

It's 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.

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; <STRIKE>strikethrough</STRIKE> shows deletions.

1-3-1
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=390><TBODY><TR><TD height=124 vAlign=top>ART. 1...A <STRIKE>2-inch wide</STRIKE> 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.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

3-5-3 NEW
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=383><TBODY><TR><TD height=91 vAlign=top>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.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

4-12
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=391><TBODY><TR><TD height=192 vAlign=top>ART. 1…A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball <strike>inbounds</strike>.
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, <strike>throw-in,</strike> 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.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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

"Well, as long as the collar and cuffs match." (James Bond) ...
 

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.

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.

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."

Fashion Police 101 ...
 

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."

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/...ca118730_m.jpg

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

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.

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.

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?

No way to disagree with that.

Gone but not forgotten
 

I agree and can verify it has been excised from current Rules book, but it still manifests itself in Basketball Rules Fundamentals #12, pg. 73, 2011-2012 book.
Isn't that where you normally start book learning for noobs??