New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015
 

NFHS & WIAA revise free throw rule to allow players to step into lane upon release of ball | Wisconsin High School Sports | Wisconsin Sports Network | WisSports.net

I don't have a link from the NFHS, so this will have to do for the moment.

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.

Summary
 

To summarize for those that think it is TL; DR

4 rules changes.
1. Players in marked lane can go in when the shot released.

2. Regarding contact on ball handler: the following acts will constitute a foul: 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 same or alternating hand(s).

3. Revised intentional foul definition: "an intentional foul is "excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor."

4. Changed fashion police rules "by identifying anything worn on the arm and/or leg as a sleeve, except a knee brace. These items, including tights, will now be permitted but must meet the color and logo restrictions in Rule 3-5-3. Previously, this rule permitted only arm sleeves and leg-compression sleeves."

Thanks Rich for finding that. I was wondering when they would come out.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Hopefully the NFHS will add the "arm bar" and "two hands" signals to the mechanics book, since I'm betting officials will be using them.

Same language?
 

NFHS Press Release

Someone from the NF was behind us or the website.

Peace

No Rest For The Weary ...
 

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 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.

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.

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)

Color My Wourld
 

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) :)

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

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.

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?

dsqrddgd909,

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

Peace

I'm honestly not sure these are misunderstood rules.

I agree completely.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

The Constitution State Only ...
 

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.

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.....

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

Dumb And Dumber ...
 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

"Largely" may be a bit of an understatement.

I Really Hate To Say This, But You're Missing One Type Of Official ...
 

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.

Doubt it.

Peace

You've seen the HS clips we post on the forum. Some HS officials have enough trouble handling the rule as it is. Do you really think NFHS wants to go there?

Free Throw Free-For-All?
 

Does anyone else foresee the new free throw rule leading to a lot of illegal pushing and jockeying for position upon release?

I think the new rule will make our jobs a little easier with regard to lane violations, but I see things getting more physical after release...especially with boys.

Yeah, but I'm not worried about it.

Do I understand the new/old rule correctly? -- The rebounders along the lane can enter upon release, but the shooter and those not along the lane have to wait until the ball contacts the rim or backboard?

Many of us in our area start using the new rules during summer ball, so that the players and we can be used to them when next school season starts. I wan t to be sure I'm getting it right.

I don't think this will be a big issue. I always felt that the "enter on contact" rules put the offense in a much more favorable position than "on release rules did". And putting the offense in a more favorable position increases the incidental contact as both sides battle for the rebound and have a realistic shot at getting it.

The "on release" rule means that the defense has a significant advantage by having an extra second to box out before having to the rebound. And therefore, the defensive rebound becomes much more automatic. I expect that displacement fouls will become more obvious and easier to call when they happen and that rough play will be minimized as most teams will simply conceed the defensive rebound rather than risk a foul on one of their center/forwards.

Ah, wasn't aware of that.

I can see where the NFHS/NCAA-W rule is easier to call. There's more judgment involved deciding when the upward motion starts, as opposed to objective nature of leaving the floor.

Assuming the new rule is written like the old rule / NCAA rule, then you are correct.

Thanks, Bob.

No. Not at all honestly. I do not think of this anymore than I did before and I do not think it would be any different than college ball which never changed their rule back to what the NF had in place. And players already put there arm across or moved out players on some level when the ball had to hit the rim or backboard.

Peace

Absolutely. You open a new window of time where players will want to improve their position. The player in the first space will try to move the 2nd player back...what some call boxing out but what was often a foul that went uncalled at the HS level when this rule was last in effect. The 2nd player will try to move the 1st player forward...also often uncalled. With the rule as it was the last decade+, that opportunity largely didn't exist. That was the #1 reason the NFHS, in the late 90's, changed the rule to free-on-contact.

Will HS officials do a better job this time? Not likely. There will be rough play in some games that isn't dealt with properly.

As for it being easier, how so? You still have an event that separates when players may or may not enter. You have to watch for that event, whatever it is, and the players at the same time. Only now, you have two events (the release and the contact) and two sets of players (in lane spaces and everyone else)...some can enter on the release and some when it hits. I don't think it is difficult to cover either one, but the new change certainly doesn't make it easier.

And whatever time you let players enter is the time you have to shift to watching for fouls.


I'm OK with the change, I just don't agree with the explanations given for the change.

Now that players are allowed upon the release, are they going to put back in the rules a comment about a player in a marked lane space cannot make contact with the shooter until the ball hits the rim/backboard? Or is that rule still in there?

I think we'll have to wait until the language is released.

Can't break the plane of the free throw line. That was the rule back then, IIRC. It's baseball season, so I'm not digging out a rulebook to see if that's still in there.

That wasn't always the rule....that came in only in the last few years before changing away from the release. There was a time when the player along the line could go anywhere they wanted after the release...even into the shooter's area. I'm not sure how it really matters any more with the shooter since the shot is gone. It isn't like the player is going to disrupt the actual FT.

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.