NFHS rule changes announced

[Scrapper1]

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.”

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

clarifying when an alternating-possession throw-in shall be administered

I wonder what this one is?

[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.

Can someone please post how these rules are currently worded?

[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.

[Rich]

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.

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.

[bainsey]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

I really don't like this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I really don't like this one.

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I really don't like this one.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

“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.”

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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

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

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Interesting.

[26 Year Gap]

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.

[APG]

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