'15-'16 NFHS Changes

[SCalScoreKeeper]

Anyone know when the 2015-2016 NFHS changes will be announced?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

Anyone know when the 2015-2016 NFHS changes will be announced?

Last year's new stuff came out as a press release on the NFHS website on May 5.
http://www.nfhs.org/activities-sports/basketball/

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

Anyone know when the 2015-2016 NFHS changes will be announced?

I was just wondering the same thing today.

I'm pretty sure the committee has already met and adjourned. I think it's just a matter of the editors gathering the results and generating a press release.

[Zoochy]

Who thinks there will be a rule about player in a marked lane space for a free throw that breaks the free throw line before the ball contacts the Rim or Backboard?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Who thinks there will be a rule about player in a marked lane space for a free throw that breaks the free throw line before the ball contacts the Rim or Backboard?

I've already gone on record that there will be because the IAABO guy on the committee wants to make himself retroactively correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Who thinks there will be a rule about player in a marked lane space for a free throw that breaks the free throw line before the ball contacts the Rim or Backboard?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've already gone on record that there will be because the IAABO guy on the committee wants to make himself retroactively correct.

I thought so too, but this rule change was not on the agenda. Maybe it will be considered as an editorial change, or a clarification?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I thought so too, but this rule change was not on the agenda. Maybe it will be considered as an editorial change, or a clarification?

Or one of those "unannounced" changes!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've already gone on record that there will be because the IAABO guy on the committee wants to make himself retroactively correct.

So we are going to be calling a lot of T's for dead ball contact since we have to call the violation first?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we are going to be calling a lot of T's for dead ball contact since we have to call the violation first?

Nope, the ball is still live (I know you know this) since it's a "delayed dead ball."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nope, the ball is still live (I know you know this) since it's a "delayed dead ball."

So we are conceivably going to give A1 a new shot for missed the free throw, then additional free throws for the foul. I prefer just to call the foul, but I'm flexible.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we are conceivably going to give A1 a new shot for missed the free throw, then additional free throws for the foul. I prefer just to call the foul, but I'm flexible.

Conceivably. By rule, if you call the foul, you're going to have to call the violation as well. I'm with you, but then again, just calling a couple of these violations will take care of the problem, too.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

Conceivably. By rule, if you call the foul, you're going to have to call the violation as well. I'm with you, but then again, just calling a couple of these violations will take care of the problem, too.

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

Exactly, what advantage is the defender getting by crossing the line but not fouling? If they foul, call it. The shot will be long gone by the time the defender gets there. No need for violation that doesn't fix anything.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

At our local IAABO interpretation meeting (new rules) back in the fall, we were told to ignore any contact as incidental unless it's intentional, or flagrant.

Here' what the IAABO Power Point slide actually stated:

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

And what problem is that? Is there some epidemic of defenders bowling over free throw shooters that I missed? Seems to me this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem . . .

I don't see a problem, but they never ask me. I could see them adding this in an effort to "clean up" the shots, or as an issue of fairness. If the shooter can't leave, no one else can enter.