Does it really matter what the explanation is? If they changed the rule to a better way or more consistent with what basketball is at every other level, why does anyone care what the reasoning actually is in this change? The NF's explanation for changing it to only on the "hit" did not make sense either. And considering what they changed it to was not a problem in many areas, because I certainly did not see the game any rougher in that area.

Peace

Their explanation and rationalization was included in the attachment I was able to download from the Arbiter NFHS Hub today. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just that they sent it out.
One minor editorial change to 9-9 also.

For anyone who can access it via Arbiter: https://nfhs-basketball.arbitersport...etball-Changes

Is this what some are concerned about?

If that is the case, I agree it does not make sense. I just do not care.

Peace

Some text for people to examine:

*the strike-through did not copy and paste. I'll edit this post later tonight to fix that.

2014-15 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES CHANGES

3-5-3
Art. 3: Arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves and tights are permissible:
a. Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve, except a knee brace, and shall meet the color restrictions.
b. The sleeves/tights shall be black, white, beige or the predominant color of the uniform and the same color sleeves/tights shall be worn by teammates.
c. All sleeves/tights shall be the same solid color.
d. Meet the logo requirements in 3-6.
Note: In general, a brace is defined as anything that contains hinges and/or straps or an opening over the knee cap.
Rationale: To clarify the rule and give better guidance to what is acceptable.

4-19-3d
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.
Rationale: This change expands the definition of an intentional foul to include excessive contact committed by all players including players in control to more clearly address the contact with the elbow(s) issue, not just those playing the ball. The expansion of the definition provides a more clear definition of an intentional foul reducing the subjectivity in making rulings on this type of play.

9-1-4g
g. A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by a lane-space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (12 *inches by 36 inches) designated by a neutral zone. A player shall position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 36-inch lane space until the ball has been released.
Rationale: The current rule “until the ball touches the ring or backboard” creates two obstacles for officials. (1) Attempting to watch the ball strike the ring or backboard while simultaneously attempting to observe if any players/free thrower violate the lane line restrictions. (2) Insufficient time for the perimeter official(s) to step down in an effort to obtain optimum angles on the players involved in rebounding a missed try. This change proposal would provide the opportunity to effectively eliminate both obstacles. In recent years we have moved players along the lane spaces up, and removed excess players along the lane lines, so the rationale for changing this rule to its current status is no longer an issue.

10-6-12 New
The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.
Rationale: Rather than continuing to make hand-checking a point of emphasis year after year, simply add a brand new rule that requires a personal foul be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball outside of the lane area. The NFHS game needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.

2014-15 MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES

1-12a
Its solid color shall be Pantone Matching System (PMS) Orange 151, Red-Orange 173 or Brown 1535. Rationale: Use of the PMS numbers allows the manufacturers to be specific about the colors.

8-1-4b
The lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone the first lane-space marks shall remain vacant. Rationale: Eliminates reference to block that is no longer used.

8-1-4c
The first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks the first lane-space marks, shall be occupied by… Rationale: Eliminates a reference that is no longer used.

9-9-1
A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, or if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.




2014-15 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. Correctable Errors
2. Team Control on Throw-in
3. Front Court & Back Court status
4. Uniforms & Adornments
5. Announcer

Most likely, but the big point I think is that under old rule of waiting until it hit, if you went even a little early, it was a big advantage. Now if you go a little early, it's not as much of an advantage because the time it takes for the ball to get to the rim. I think the whole point was to make the defense get what NFHS deems to be the "correct" amount of rebounds on missed shots. They have a figure of what they feel is correct and keep adjusting the rule until they get there. Leaving block empty seemed to work for a bit but now that players are going in back of the low player, it's actually easier I think than when the low block was occupied by defense. So now that it's the release, even if that offensive player leaves a split second early, the ball hasn't even got there yet so not as much as an advantage. Of course, I could just be crazy and 100% wrong, but that's the way I see it.

My same thoughts, you just did a better job of explaining it than I did but I agree completely.

You make a great point. I hadn't considered that element....that it, to a large degree, neutralizes the advantage of being a split second early.

Contact Comment only
 

10-6-12 New
The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler:
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.
Rationale: Rather than continuing to make hand-checking a point of emphasis year after year, simply add a brand new rule that requires a personal foul be called any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball outside of the lane area. The NFHS game needs this type of illegal contact on the perimeter ball handlers and dribblers eliminated.


Why was the "Outside of the lane area" added to the rational?
Does this makes it seem that this type of contact is "allowed" in the lane area?

We have been told thru emphasis during 13-14 that all of this contact no matter where on the court must be called consistantly as a foul.


If you really read rule 10-6, this seems like a way to re-write/add to articles 1, 2, 3 & 4, and make sure that referees do not subjectively decide whether or not the defense has impeded the progress of the ball handler/dribbler.

This is purely a guess. I think this was done so that we would not penalize players automatically if the contact took place in the lane. It is understandable that in the lane or lane area that touching the ball handler is going to be common. They probably did not want to go that far in the rules to suggest any touching in the lane should be called no matter what. That is something I will certainly ask for clarification for in the coming weeks. And I know that even in my state before this rules change, they clarified that if hands were touching the ball handler and the hands were "retreating" or in front of their body, not trying to extend or direct the opponent, then we could pass on that kind of contact.

Again I am sure each state will have some kind of interpretation for what they feel is acceptable. Our higher-ups told us basically similar stuff as you have stated and they made it a state

And the thing that also matters still, there is a rule for incidental contact. They did not change 4-27 about movement and when contact is based on "advantage/disadvantage" on some level, still in the rulebook.

Peace

The NFHS modeled its rule on the NCAAW's guidelines. The wording doesn't mean acts a-d are allowed on the BH/dribbler in the lane area. They were illegal before and they're still illegal, especially if there's displacement (believe me, we kept calling them in NCAAW). The goal of the rule is to make sure they're called away from the basket so players have freedom of movement all over the court. NFHS felt we - collectively - weren't doing a good job of that at the HS level given hand-checking has been a POE forever so now there's a new emphasis.

To follow up on Jeff's comment: when the ball is in the lane area, ref the play in front of you. When it's outside the lane area, keep the kids' hands off the BH/dribbler.