New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015

[Rich]

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.

[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

[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.

[RefCT]

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.