New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015

[JRutledge]

Great changes if that is the case. It appears to be since Ms. Wynns was featured and quoted in the article.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Great changes if that is the case. It appears to be since Ms. Wynns was featured and quoted in the article.

Peace

It looks like the typical NFHS press release. And I agree that it's great -- much more black and white on FT violations now and the "automatics", if handled properly, will clean up the perimeter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

It looks like the typical NFHS press release. And I agree that it's great -- much more black and white on FT violations now and the "automatics", if handled properly, will clean up the perimeter.

They went the NCAA route by actually putting it in the rules and not making it just a guideline.

I just got tired of being the only person calling the FT violations. And I would only call the real obvious ones.

Peace

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They went the NCAA route by actually putting it in the rules and not making it just a guideline.

Peace

I agree. It will be interesting to see the effect on game time that the "automatics" will have. How long will it take them to adjust? At the JV and Fosh levels, I wonder what effect on the game itself will be (are they able to adjust?).

The fashion police, as much as I hate it, will also be easier. Essentially, anything other than a brace must meet the color requirements.

In CT, it is made easier by a local rule that the head, arm and leg "extras" must be the same color. They don't differentiate between upper and lower body like the NFHS rules do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RefCT

I agree. It will be interesting to see the effect on game time that this will have. At the JV and Fosh levels, I wonder what effect on the game itself will be (are they able to adjust?).

I do not think it will change the game much at all. I think the NF overreacted to some situations where things might have been rough. I do not remember the game being any more rough than any other rebound situation in the game. We just have to call fouls when these situations take place so that this rule stays in place. But I do not see it changing anything at any level of basketball.

Peace

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it will change the game much at all. I think the NF overreacted to some situations where things might have been rough. I do not remember the game being any more rough than any other rebound situation in the game. We just have to call fouls when these situations take place so that this rule stays in place. But I do not see it changing anything at any level of basketball.

Peace

Sorry JRutledge - I was referring to the "automatics". Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity and I have edited the post to clarify what I am referring to.

[rockyroad]

NFHS | Lane Players Can Release When Free Throw is Attempted in High School Basketball

Not techie enough to do all that fancy stuff, but here is the NFHS link.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Sorry JRutledge - I was referring to the "automatics". Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity and I have edited the post to clarify what I am referring to.

Oh.

Well they already (maybe just my state) had made it clear that we were to follow previous guidelines on hand-checking and body contact. So at least in my state were were beat over the head with this just last year for example. There was a whole webnar over the issue in my state. So for us this will be business as usual around here. But I realize that was not a NF POE or constant discussion point.

Peace

[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

[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.