Members of playing-rules committees often are referred to as stewards of their sports. But lately, some of those stewards have been stewing.

In the last six months, three bold changes -- new three-point and free-throw lane lines in basketball and a zero-tolerance language policy in soccer -- were set to be implemented for the 2003-04 playing seasons. But a complex and, to some, confounding, approval process postponed the measures. Though rules- committee members were unanimous in thinking the changes were in the best interests of their sports, groups to which the committees report felt differently. The result has some of the stewards wondering whether administrators who made the final call were out of bounds.

In May, the Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committees approved the international three-point line (20 feet, 6 inches, instead of the current 19 feet, 9 inches) for men and women and the "trapezoid" free-throw lane for the men's game (the women's committee voted to experiment with the lane in 2003-04). Both changes had undergone years of research and discussion -- the new three-point line and a wider lane in fact had been an experimental rule in men's basketball last year, so few coaches were unaware that the rules committees were seriously considering changes.

But because the new court markings would be an expense to institutions, the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet and the Divisions II and III Championships Committees had to OK the changes as part of their structure-given responsibility to review proposals that have an impact on finances, player safety or image of the sport.

Between the time the changes were announced and the Championships/Competition Cabinet met in June, however, the basketball rules committees asked for a delay of the measures until the 2004-05 season. Then, during the cabinet's June 23-25 meeting, the basketball rules committees altered their shot again, pulling both proposals from all three championships groups' agendas and issuing a statement that said the rules were withdrawn "in order to educate coaches about the proposed changes and the process by which they were formed."

The timing of the announcement prompted speculation that the cabinet was preparing to vote the rules changes down, but on what grounds was a matter of debate. The rules committees seemingly had settled people's financial jitters with the one-year delay, but some claim the discussion at the cabinet level was headed beyond financial impact to image of the sport, a much grayer and -- to some -- a more questionable oversight area.

"Image of the sport -- who knows what that means?" said Men's Basketball Rules Committee Chair Art Hyland, who coordinates basketball officiating for the Big East Conference. "I don't have a problem with the championships groups having financial and safety oversight, but what constitutes image of the sport?"

"Image of the sport" also was the justification when the cabinet shot down the Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee's proposed zero-tolerance language rule. That change wasn't even on the championships groups' agendas since the soccer rules committee thought the measure enhanced, rather than detracted from, the image of the sport by firmly addressing a growing language-abuse problem. But though the change wasn't an action item going into the cabinet meeting, it was coming out. Cabinet members argued that soccer already had mechanics in place to enforce existing penalties without applying a more restrictive rule. The cabinet also believed that such a sportsmanship measure should be approached Association-wide rather than sport by sport.

The case in soccer has a twist, though. The Divisions II and III Championships Committees liked the idea. Division III thought so highly of it that members urged the soccer rules committee to prod other rules committees to adopt a similar rule. The fact that the divisions did not agree means that the proposal will be sent to the Playing Rules Oversight Committee, an eight-person panel created last year for just such occasions. That group, composed of representatives from each division, is charged with forming a recommendation for the NCAA Executive Committee, which ultimately must break the deadlock.

A case of mistaken authority?

The situations in basketball and soccer raise the question of who has the final say when it comes to the rules of play. Cabinet members believe the buck stops with championships groups since they are the bodies to which rules committees report. Rules committees, though, are beginning to think their expertise is being micro-managed and, ultimately, undercut.

The issue has complex roots. Before 1997, the Executive Committee decided on playing rules issues that dealt with player safety, financial impact or issues that rose to the level of perhaps affecting the "image of the sport." Those issues came straight from the rules committees, and the Executive Committee -- then composed of athletics administrators and not presidents like today's group of the same name -- settled the matters. After federation, though, significant rules changes now go through the championships groups, then directly or indirectly through each division's Management Council and presidential body. If the divisions don't agree, the proposal goes to the Executive Committee, with input from the Playing Rules Oversight Committee.

The current confusion could be due to fundamental differences between people accustomed to the old structure and those more familiar with the new. Also, while the philosophy governing playing rules may have shifted at the time of restructuring, the implementation apparatus may not have changed with it.

Jean Lenti Ponsetto, whose term as chair of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet ended after the cabinet's June meeting, said rules-committee members shouldn't assume that the method by which changes were approved in the old structure applies today.

"Under the old reporting lines, it was relatively smooth sailing for rules changes," said Lenti Ponsetto, athletics director at DePaul University. "Approval came more quickly, with less fanfare and a lot less membership discussion. In the new structure, though, there are more filters. Plus, because information is so much more readily available with Internet access to committee reports and decisions, there is a lot more membership discussion.

"The new structure has been somewhat frustrating for those who were comfortable operating in the old structure."

The Big East's Hyland is one of those who is frustrated. He said in the old structure, rules committees were entrusted with acting on behalf of their sport and that other groups did not try to overturn their decisions. Further, Hyland said rules committees were then -- and are now -- composed of coaches and administrators who either are actively involved in the game or have meaningful experience. That direct knowledge, Hyland said, puts rules committees in a better position to act