New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by RefCT

I think this is only in CT (or maybe other states that have adopted this). I believe the NFHS rule says they can be different colors between the arm and leg, but must be consistent colors across the team.

Can someone confirm this? I could be wrong and don't have my book with me to confirm either way.

Under NFHS:

*Arm and leg sleeves have to be the same color on the player and throughout the team (3-5-3b)
*Headbands and wrist bands have to be the same color on the player and throughout the team (3-5-4a)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by RefCT

I think this is only in CT (or maybe other states that have adopted this). I believe the NFHS rule says they can be different colors between the arm and leg, but must be consistent colors across the team.

Can someone confirm this? I could be wrong and don't have my book with me to confirm either way.

Incorrect.

Arm + Leg = Same Legal Color A for all team players.
Head + Wrist = Same Legal Color B for all team players.
Legal Color A not necessarily = to Legal Color B.
Legal Colors: white, black, beige, or single solid school color.

(I think BMac has some PowerPoint with Manute and Spud that clarifies it in picture language)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I don't disagree with the change made regarding FTs, their explanation doesn't make any sense.



It isn't any more or less difficult to watch for lane violations relative to the ball being released than it the ball hitting the rim/backboard. In both cases, you have to watch two things. In fact, I think it is probably somewhat easier to watch the ball hit the rim as that is a clear and distinct point in time while the release is a little more subjective.

As for the rebounding angle, I'm just don't see that there is anything there. If you're in good position for the lane violation, you're probably in pretty good position for rebounding. I do suppose, however, that separating the two events may allow for the official to move after the release when the rare occasion occurs that would move them to a different spot.

I guess I disagree that it was not logical. I did not see this called very often by many officials and it was partly because we were splitting hairs to when the ball touched the rim or backboard.

I guess this is just as logical IMO as what was the reason they changed the rule to what it was for years.

Peace

[LRZ]

Personally, I don't like automatics, preferring some degree of discretion and game management. There is a flow to the game and good officials understand that. I may do what I'm told, but I don't have to like it.

[dsqrddgd909]

I don't understand this portion of the press release:
"
The rules committee also expanded the definition of an intentional foul in Rule 4-19-3d, which now states that an intentional foul is “excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.”"

"Wynns said that this revision will address the issue of contact with the elbow and should reduce the subjectivity in making rulings on intentional fouls. "


Current rule -
ART. 3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:

a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.


How does the change address elbows?

[JRutledge]

dsqrddgd909,

I agree. There must be some wording change that was not made clear. But I doubt that this is even an issue.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm already revising my Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

How does this sound?

Anything worn on the arm and/or the leg (except a knee brace) is defined as a sleeve. These items, including tights, must be white, black, beige, or a single solid school color. When wearing sleeves, all team players must wear the same color; the arm compression sleeve color must match the leg compression sleeve color, which must be the same color for the entire team.

Players in marked lane spaces must not move into the lane until the ball is released by the free-throw shooter. The shooter, and the players behind the three point arc, must wait until the ball hits the rim, or the backboard, before entering the lane, or penetrating the three point arc. In addition, the free throw shooter must cause the ball to enter the basket, or touch the ring, before the free throw ends. During a free throw, no opponent, including bench personnel, may disconcert the free thrower.

I'm honestly not sure these are misunderstood rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I don't disagree with the change made regarding FTs, their explanation doesn't make any sense.



It isn't any more or less difficult to watch for lane violations relative to the ball being released than it the ball hitting the rim/backboard. In both cases, you have to watch two things. In fact, I think it is probably somewhat easier to watch the ball hit the rim as that is a clear and distinct point in time while the release is a little more subjective.

As for the rebounding angle, I'm just don't see that there is anything there. If you're in good position for the lane violation, you're probably in pretty good position for rebounding. I do suppose, however, that separating the two events may allow for the official to move after the release when the rare occasion occurs that would move them to a different spot.

I agree completely.

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Incorrect.

Arm + Leg = Same Legal Color A for all team players.
Head + Wrist = Same Legal Color B for all team players.
Legal Color A not necessarily = to Legal Color B.
Legal Colors: white, black, beige, or single solid school color.

(I think BMac has some PowerPoint with Manute and Spud that clarifies it in picture language)

Thanks for that clarification. A+B is what I was thinking of. I believe in CT, they have forced A and B to be the same color to prevent confusion. I am sure Billy will clarify and I would be interested in seeing his PowerPoint Presentation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm honestly not sure these are misunderstood rules.

They aren't. These rules are usually something the participants are not aware of, but not misunderstood.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I disagree that it was not logical. I did not see this called very often by many officials and it was partly because we were splitting hairs to when the ball touched the rim or backboard.

I guess this is just as logical IMO as what was the reason they changed the rule to what it was for years.

Peace

Probably so, as far is being just as logical as the change made several years ago. But, in the mean time, we also had the change to move players up one position along the lane, so things have change a bit.

As for splitting hairs, how has the change made it any different? The only thing that has changed is the specific point at which it is a violation. The hairsplitting issue will still exist, and possibly even to a greater degree since the new reference point is no longer as distinct and precise.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

I don't understand this portion of the press release:
"
The rules committee also expanded the definition of an intentional foul in Rule 4-19-3d, which now states that an intentional foul is “excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.”"

"Wynns said that this revision will address the issue of contact with the elbow and should reduce the subjectivity in making rulings on intentional fouls. "


Current rule -
ART. 3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:

a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.


How does the change address elbows?

I don't understand this change either. It doesn't seem to change the current intentional foul rule at all. Fouls by or against an airborne shooter are clearly stated to be personal fouls already and excessive contact is already an intentional foul. So I don't get the point trying to be made here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Probably so, as far is being just as logical as the change made several years ago. But, in the mean time, we also had the change to move players up one position along the lane, so things have change a bit.

As for splitting hairs, how has the change made it any different? The only thing that has changed is the specific point at which it is a violation. The hairsplitting issue will still exist, and possibly even to a greater degree since the new reference point is no longer as distinct and precise.

It changed IMO because it was not followed very well. I know it is sematics on some level, but when people did not move and others moved on the release, that made it very difficult for consistency. And considering the rule changed to have the first violation to be the only one considered on the lane line, I think you saw a lot of trying to figure out which took place first when a violation was clearly taking place on some level. But the rule was last applied with the defense being below the block and I believe a player right next to the FT shooter. That is 2 fewer people on the line as well.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm honestly not sure these are misunderstood rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They aren't. These rules are usually something the participants are not aware of, but not misunderstood.

We use modified NCAA rules (release) in our prep school games. You'd be surprised how many times players behind the three point arc believe that they can move in to get in on some rebounding action on the release. Not aware? Misunderstood? Six of one. A half dozen of the other. Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Regarding Fashion Police rules. I wish I had a dollar for every time I explained the rules regarding equipment to players, and to coaches. I would be a multi-hundredaire.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Thanks for that clarification. A+B is what I was thinking of. I believe in CT, they have forced A and B to be the same color to prevent confusion. I am sure Billy will clarify and I would be interested in seeing his PowerPoint Presentation.

Connecticut: Headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves, all have to be one color (choice of white, black, beige, or a single solid school color) on each player, and for all members of the team. Again, this was for Connecticut only.

Here's last year's NFHS interpretation (for everyone except Connecticut) for the various color combinations:

http://www.iaabo6.org/Interp/2014/in...Oct%202013.pdf

Note: It's not Spud Webb, it's Muggsy Bogues. Freddy thinks that all short guys look alike.