2014 Unannounced Changes? (e.g. Casebook 4.14.1 Sit. D)
 

Has anybody found or posted a list of any unannounced rule changes for the current season's rule book?

You've heard/seen something we need to know?

No, but you just KNOW that they've made some, which is why I was hoping somebody else had put together a list.

I was discussing goaltending today and remembered that they removed "outside the cylinder" from the definition last year in an unannounced change. So I thought I would ask about this season's book.

It's almost a given that there will be some unanounced changes that affect more than what they understand, and there will be announced changes that have little to no real impact on the rules.

Two Violations In One ...
 

Goaltending. No. Basket Interference. Tastes great. No. Less filling.

"Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes"...Unannounced Type
 

In Rule 4 . . .

4-15-3:
Was: "The dribble may be started by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted."
Now: "The dribble begins by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted.
Assessment: I like any time they get rid of the word "may", I'm for it. Sometimes leaves options open that aren't really permitted. Wish they'd clean up 8-1-4 in similar fashion.

4-19-3d:
Oh wait, that one was "announced."

4-20-2:
Was: "The free throw starts when..."
Now: "The free throw begins when..."
Assessment: A distinction without a difference.

Thanks, Freddy. The lack of traffic on this thread makes me feel like there might not be too many this year. I hope that's true. I'll start looking when I get my own books this week.

Or nobody has looked that hard yet. :D

Has anyone looked at the change concerning arm/leg sleeves. I really like that they have said that anything worn on the arms/or legs is a sleeve. This means the long knee pads, and tights included. They also did away with the medical verification. They just have to meet the color requirements.

I'm guessing guys will still ask, though: right before they tell them to stand still for the jump ball.

or hasn't received their manual yet.......

This is an announced change, so maybe it deserves its own thread. But we were told that the rule now reads that the color of these items must be black, white, gray or the "dominant" color of the jersey. It used to be any school color.

Again, I don't have my books yet, so maybe somebody can confirm this.

This is from the NFHS website.

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.

Pleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeeeee!!!
 

Now, can they give wristbands and headbands the same color and team requirements?

Isn't a wristband worn on the arm? :D

Better yet, can we get out of the fashion/color business entirely? I got a game to work.

We should take those officials who love being fashion police and put them in a group called "Compliance Officials". They would travel around to schools and law down the fashion law. We could create a test of entirely uniform questions (wait, would that be any different than the current NFHS tests??) to find those special officials!

Either that, or have schools self-report uniform violations. I just wanna call the game.

Another change ...

NFHS 3-5-4

Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige or predominant color of the uniform and shall be the same color for each item and all participants.

It's great in theory, until the away teams start wearing white undershirts with long sleeves. AFAIC, make the color requirement simple.

Dominant jersey color only, or they take it off. No, "white, beige, black, fuscia, or predominant color..." If it doesn't match your jersey, it doesn't work.

Of course, if they wanted to make this a similar process as protesting the use of ineligible players, I wouldn't have my feelings hurt. Get it on tape and send it to the state.

Fashion, yes. Color, no. Colors on sleeves can be confusing. Imagine having several colors on each team with players on opposite teams wearing similar colors. It would make it a lot easier to allow a team to only wear a color that matches their main uniform color OR possibly home can wear white sleeves and visitor can wear dark (black) sleeves even if it is not their uniform color.

Is This a Contradiction?
 

OK, it seems they've thrown out "single solid school color" and replaced it with "predominant color of the uniform". I get that. However . . .

New 3-5-4a says, "Headbands and wristbands shall be white, black, beige, or predominant color of the uniform..."

New 3.5.4 says, "Team A's school colors are blue and gold and the predominant color of Team A's jerseys are (sic) white. Prior to the game, an official notices that several Team A members are wearing . . . blue headbands and blue wristbands... RULING: Legal . . .

Is this not a contradiction between rulebook and casebook?
Or am I missing something here?

I asked my family about what the casebook ruling states, & they were shaking their heads, as how can blue headbands & wristbands be considered legal when the predominant color of the uniform is white?

If it is not worn on the wrist. :D

Agreed. My bottom line feeling is junk all the fashion police stuff, and play on.

Are they not already??

Yes they are

Indeed they are. I misunderstood the verbiage in the rule change. Thanks for the heads up.

Fashion Police Confusion In Connecticut ...
 

Since wristbands are worn on the arm, they are sleeves? Right?

Since headbands must match the color of wristbands, then they (headbands) also fall under the "sleeves" color restrictions? Right?

The new "predominant color of the uniform" language applies to wristbands, headbands, sleeves (arm, and leg), and undershirts? Right?

I Hate This, But...
 

No. Compare 3-5-4c (wristbands) with 3-5-3. In an unfortunate overstatement, 3-5-3a ("Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve") mucks things up.

No. As before, headbands and wristbands are one family, arm sleeves and leg sleeves (add tights now) are another family.

Everything is the same except "predominant color of the uniform" replaces "single solid school color"

BTW, do you have a new rulesbook?

Ugh. Just wish they left this alone.

School colors are white and green. Girls want to wear green headbands at home, with their white uniforms and green trim. Last year's ruling: legal (any single school color.) Before 2010-11: illegal (had to match the color of the torso of the shirt). The girls hated it, in part because different officials ignored the "illegal" headbands.

Four years this worked just fine. I would love to hear the back story on this: what happened that prompted the reversion to the old rule?

And now the case book contradicts the language of the rule? Double ugh. And no...I don't have my new rules book yet.

Revise and Send This to Your State Office...I Did
 

Hi (state association director),
These "fashion police" changes by NFHS are getting out of hand. There are errors this year, and what worked great last year for the first time is being retracted again this year.
Any chance the (state association) can be convinced to waive the change the NFHS made once again to the color restriction regarding optional adornments? Right when they got basketball rule 3-5-3 and 3-5-4 to a point that it was easily enforcible (white, black, beige, or a single solid school color for arm-sleeves and leg-sleeves and for headbands and wristbands). No problem with that last year whatsoever. The players finally had a rule they could live with . . . and they did. Easy for everyone. And now this year they change "single solid school color" to "predominant color of the uniform."
This "fashion police" retraction to how it was previous years is not only borderline senseless, given the hesitancy of many officials not to mess with these rules at all, it will become a chaotic, unenforced, inconsistently enforced situation like it was two years ago and prior. What in the world precipitated this change? Were there rampant problems with last year's rule or something?
Any chance the (state association) can waive this new NFHS change and revert to how these two rules were last season when they worked just great?
Also, the unintended contradiction between 3-5-4a and supporting casebook 3.5.4 needs to be corrected.
Also, the phrase in 3-5-3a, "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" is not correct, given 3-5-4 obviously gives separate rules for wristbands and headbands.

Please consider the headache trainers are gonna have with these errors and seemingly unnecessary changes and waive these NFHS changes for our state this and following years.

Looking forward to your seasoned and directive response.

Why is this so hard? The "anything worn on arms and legs is a sleeve" pertains to the long sleeves with the pads in them, or the elbow shooting sleeves. They removed the medical permission part and lumped all into a sleeve. Nothing really has changed with the headbands and wristbands, except predominant has replaced single school color.

If a team's colors are blue, red, and yellow, and they're wearing blue tops, gotta be black, white, beige, or blue. That's it. Headbands/ wristbands must match, sleeves and legs must match, but the bands and sleeves don't have to match. In the above scenario, the HB/WB can be white and the sleeves can be black.

It Will Be Like Christmas Morning ...
 

Not until Wednesday, October 15, 2014.

Doesn't It Start With An F ???
 

Hey Freddy: I think that you misspelled "mucks".

I say go one step further. Send a version of the same letter to the NFHS Rules Editor, Theresia Wynns. If she receives enough of them it might effect some change. I plan to do it as soon as I either have my rule book in hand (October 21) or the new online version appears on Arbiter, whichever comes first.

I guess the Rules Writers at NFHS have realized that such things (i.e., leotards with knee hex-pads and so-called "shooting sleeves") are more "fashion-statements" than "medical necessities". I've noticed even 6th graders--and some 3rd graders wearing those accessories. I'm humored when I see it:rolleyes:

Reminds me of Joe Pesci from The Super.

Because...
1. Former "single solid school color" was easy for teams to comply with and for officials to enforce and there was never a problem with it, and
2. New "predominant color of the jersey", instead, being more restrictive, means something senseless to have to educate officials on, something non-essential to the game that will need to be enforced with teams who, say, as a green and white school color team, are wearing their white jerseys and want to wear their green headbands and we have to tell 'em no that green isn't the predominant color of their jerseys
3. "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" (3-5-3a)... is wrong, since 3-5-4 details requisites about wristbands, which are enforced differently than arm sleeves.
4. Casebook 3.5.4 directly contradicts rule 3-5-4a.
This whole attempt at fashion police enhancement, unnecessary as it is, seems ill-contrived and hastily thrown together and without real need. And that's no way to maintain authority and order.
Getting a group of officials to buy into a rule change as chaotic and nonsensical as this is gonna be like pushing a rope. The Fed has to put themselves of those out there in the field who have to deal with the changes they come up with like this. But they didn't.
That's why it's so hard.
Then again, don't care and it wouldn't be that hard.
I'm hoping our state reverts to last year's rule on this and we can get back to RSBQ and 1,2 Jabbar automatics, etc--things that really matter.

Thoughts on this new casebook play?

*4.14.1 SITUATION D:

A1 is fouled by B1 while Team A is in double bonus. In frustration, A1 pushes B1 after the ball becomes dead. A1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 successfully makes both free throws for the personal foul assessed to B1. B3 is ready to attempt the free throw for the technical foul by A1. The official scorer notifies the officials that the technical foul on A1 was his/her fifth.

RULING: Officials notify the Team A coach and A1 of the disqualification and allow a substitute for A1. A correctable error has occurred by allowing the wrong player (A1) to attempt the free throws for the personal foul and has been discovered within the timeframe to correct. The free throws by A1 are cancelled and A1’s substitute shall attempt the free throws for the personal foul against A1 followed by the attempts by Team B for the technical foul. (2-10-1c, 4-14-1)

Whoever came up with this RULING should be sent back to Basketball Officiating 101. R2-S10-A1c and R4-S14-A1 do NOT apply. The only rule that applies is: R4-S14-A2, which states: "A player is officially disqualified and becomes bench personnel when the coach is notified by an official."

My first game of the season (also Mark, Jr.'s) is not until Nov. 13th and already I am gnashing my teeth and pulling out what little hair I left on my head.

MTD, Sr.

iirc, NFHS had this one way, and NCAA (at least W) had it the other. I'm glad they decided to make them the same, but they changed the wrong one.

As an FYI, it's also available in Kindle form for $5.99....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...XWC3ERC2AK4LX5

I think this falls into the category of "unannounced change".

Since I retired from college officiating after the 2007-08 season my interest in the college (men's and women's) is to the extent that I buy copies of the rules, casebooks, and CCA manuals, and only skim through them. When did the NCAA Women's make this change?

MTD, Sr.

Along with the Note on 2-11-5: The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play because the scorer has failed to notify the official is as follows: As soon as the scorer discovers the irregularity, the game horn should be sounded after, or as soon as, the ball is in control of the offending team or is dead. The disqualified player must be removed immediately. Any points which may have been scored while such player was illegally in the game are counted. If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials.

Oh, about 10 years ago (I don't know that it was a change)

NCAAW Case Play!!!
 

For those who are interested, this is the (edited) NCAAW case play for the NFHS situation detailed above:

A.R. 65. A5 is fouled during an unsuccessful try for goal. As A5 goes to the free-throw line, A5 is assessed an unsportsmanlike technical foul, which is A5’s fifth and disqualifying foul. The scorer...does not inform the official that A5 has been disqualified until after A5 attempts the free throws.

RULING: Since A5 and A5’s coach were not notified of the disqualification until after A5’s free throws, the result of A5’s free throws shall stand. (Rule 4-12.4, 8-3.2.c, 2-9.4 and 4-27.1.e)

Bob:

You mean you don't want to climb in my attic with me and go through 43 years of H.S. and college rules books and casebooks with me. :D

MTD, Sr.

Are you supporting "my" RULING or supporting the NFHS Casebook RULING? I believe that the Note in NFHS R2-11-A5 further supports "my" RULING. And should be included with NHFS R4-S14-A2.

MTD, Sr.

Thanks. Apparently I did not recall correctly. ;)

Now that you posted it, I seem to remember (but we've seen how reliable that is) that this case was put in a few years ago -- and I agree with the case.

This ruling has been taken to NFHS for clarification. They are supposedly going to issue a correction along with a few other seemingly contradictions between rule and caseplay. Hopefully they will correct and not confuse further.

JMF:

I agree with NCAA Women's Ruling but what year is that ruling from?

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Loss last night for you.

Moved posts discussing this casebook play to this thread

APG:

To which thread?

MTD, Sr.

From Peter Webb, IAABO
 

When in doubt, go to the source...or as close as you can get:

Your groups concern is right on. The new Case Book Play 4.14.1 D ruling is not accurate. A commendation to you and the group for reviewing the Case Book play(s) and for caring to share your concern.
The NFHS Editor was informed about the concern earlier this month. IAABO will have a memo out to Interpreters shortly. The memo will include several pre-season items including this Case Book Play.

As per Rules 4.14.2 and 2.11's Note following Article 5 are support for (a) the situation not being a correctable error situation; (b) citing the accurate ruling that the player was a player when he/she attempted the free throws and the points are counted.

For IAABO,

Peter

Peter Webb
IAABO Coordinator of Rules Interpreters & Trainers

MTDS -

All I know is it's in this year's case book ;) I can't remember when the change took place. And, unfortunately, I don't have an attic :D

As for the p.s., yeah, well...

From the NFHS Rulebook/Casebook thread to the "2014 Unannounced Changes."

It appears though that we'll be getting a clarification soon from NFHS on this play

I think it first appears in the 2002 book.

And, here's a NFHS 2000-01 Interp:

SITUATION 4: A1 is fouled by B2 and is awarded two free throws. The foul is B2’s fifth foul. The trail official reports the fifth foul to Team B’s coach. Before a substitute is made, the lead official incorrectly permits A1 to attempt the first free throw. The trail official realizes the error and huddles with the lead official. RULING: The result of the first attempt shall stand. Team B’s head coach shall be notified of B2’s disqualification. Once B2 has been replaced, A1 shall attempt the second free throw. COMMENT: This is an official’s error and not a correctable error situation according to Rule 2-10. (10-6 Pen; 2-8-3; 10-5-1d)

Officially Disqualified ...
 

Nice citation Mark T, DeNucci.

In theory I agree with you, but I've always viewed specific casebook plays as "trumping" anything generic in the rulebook. It appears that the fact that the coach was not notified and that the "five foul player" made some free throws is now considered to be a correctable error.

Received this from the NCHSAA, who received it from the NFHS today, after I asked about this case play.

Correction for 4-14-1 Situation D: A1 is fouled by B1 while Team A is in double bonus. In frustration, A1 pushes B1 after the ball becomes dead. A1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 successfully makes both free throws for the personal foul assessed to B1. B3 is ready to attempt the free throws for the technical foul by A1. The official scorer notifies the officials that the technical foul on A1 was her/his fifth.
Ruling: Officials notify the Team A coach of the disqualification and allow a substitute for A1. The points made by A1 will stand. B3 is allowed to shoot the free throws for the technical foul and Team B is given the ball at half court to continue the game. 4-14-2; 2-11-5 Note.

We will make this correction on our 2014-15 Interpretations which will be distributed a couple of weeks after the Rules Interpretation session.

Or, as most of us have assumed, it might just be that someone wrote a case play without reviewing the rules or consulting someone else who had.

It happens all too often for that to not be the case!

But not with the CB Play cannot be defended by rule.

MTD, Sr.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

I'm on my way to work, so I don't have time to think of one, and I can't think of one off the top of my head, but aren't there a few casebook plays that are "free standing" and have no rule backing, or may actually "go against the grain" of a written rule?

Break Out The Blue Font ...
 

That's crazy talk. This is the NFHS. Something like that would never happen.