New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015

Camron Rust

JRutledge wrote
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

dsqrddgd909 wrote
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

Camron Rust wrote
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

Adam wrote
I'm honestly not sure these are misunderstood rules.

JRutledge wrote
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

RefCT wrote
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/interpretation-Oct%202013.pdf

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

TimTaylor

JRutledge wrote
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

Agreed. There was a real push here on the whole RSBQ concept, so it's not really a lot different. What I think it will do is clearly outline for everyone what contact is not allowed - hopefully it will lead to better consistency in the way games are called.

As others have said, I am also at somewhat of a loss to understand what the intent of the change in the intentional foul definition was - seems it didn't really change anything. Guess we'll have to wait & see what the actual wording and accompanying interp say.....

bob jenkins

RefCT wrote
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.

When they come out with the actual wording, they might also change the "matching" restrictions.

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
When they come out with the actual wording, they might also change the "matching" restrictions.

The Connecticut IAABO State Board decided to make all (headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves) match in color to make it easier for officials, coaches, and players to "understand" the rule.

Result: They didn't.

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
The Connecticut IAABO State Board decided to make all (headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves) match in color to make it easier for officials, coaches, and players to "understand" the rule.

Result: They didn't.

I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

OKREF

JRutledge wrote
I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

They actually are at the school my kids attend, for the girls at least. The girls like to wear headbands and the coach orders them all and they are all the same color. He does this because he knows the rule.

Freddy

JRutledge wrote
I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .

1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

Current average around here seems to be about 2.72.
Until it's totally abolished, I'd be happy with 3.01. Even a 2.98.

JRutledge

OKREF wrote
They actually are at the school my kids attend, for the girls at least. The girls like to wear headbands and the coach orders them all and they are all the same color. He does this because he knows the rule.

I am not suggesting that there are absolutely no schools that offer these things, but the vast majority of schools have little budget for these things at the high school level for sure and if a player is wearing these things they likely bought them on their own. And if that was not the case, then I would not see so many coaches saying to us here, "I told him he could not wear that." But it is funny, we were not allowed to wear anything without approval or knowledge of the coach when I played. Times have certainly changed.

Peace

JRutledge

Freddy wrote
FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .

1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

Current average around here seems to be about 2.72.
Until it's totally abolished, I'd be happy with 3.01. Even a 2.98.

If my state did not make a big deal about uniform issues and as a result penalize officials negatively in post season assignments for these issues, I would be at #1. Because I like working in the post season and want to accomplish some things, I choose to enforce it, even over the top of what others might do.

Peace

PG_Ref

Does the rule for sleeves suggest that the "medical" requirement is going away?

Camron Rust

PG_Ref wrote
Does the rule for sleeves suggest that the "medical" requirement is going away?

It seems to, but it isn't entirely clear....and I hope so.

bainsey

Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

[deleted]

bainsey wrote
Any personal thoughts about this?

Too hard to judge accurately (for HS officials anyway) and results in too many "default" blocks that should be charges.

APG

bainsey wrote
Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

It's not on the gather. It's on the upward motion of the ball to shoot or pass the ball. The gather precedes the upward motion. YOu should also clarify that the rule change only applied to NCAA-M. NCAA-W, for now, is the same (with regard to the deciding point) as NFHS.

Adam

bainsey wrote
Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

No idea, but my personal thoughts on it are largely negative.

"Largely" may be a bit of an understatement.

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .
1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

0 - Officials who don't know the Fashion Police rules, and, thus, don't know how to enforce, even if they wanted to, which they don't, so they don't. These guys probably don't care to enforce, because they don't care enough to understand the rules. There's a picture of one of these guys next to the word oblivious in the dictionary.

« Previous Page Next Page »