NFHS Rules Changes 2016-17

[bballref3966]

http://www.nfhs.org/articles/new-rul...ol-basketball/

[JRutledge]

Not many changes. It appears only one rules change was made to the actual playing of the game.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not many changes. It appears only one rules change was made to the actual playing of the game.

Peace

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

[PG_Ref]

I guess enough officials defaulted to "managing cheerleaders" wasn't in our rule book that the NFHS was forced to add it.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

To clock operator, "I need 15 seconds, start with a horn and end with a horn!"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

I did not see this enough to matter. At least it is in the book now and not a speculation as to if we call a T or not.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

I think this is a major revenue stream for them. I doubt that will happen unless they can sell something else to fill the void.

Also my state already gives out books every other year. So this might be something your state would have to do first.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think this is a major revenue stream for them. I doubt that will happen unless they can sell something else to fill the void.

Also my state already gives out books every other year. So this might be something your state would have to do first.

Peace

As I said, they just have to raise the price of the book by $1-2 to replace what they'd lose by alternating years.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we could just get them to go to a biennial publication cycle for all of the books. Simply put, there is absolutely no need to produce new books every year.

I know they need to make some money to fund their operations. They could reduce the rules meeting similarly and save money. They could charge $1-2 more for each book and profit the same money as they do know.

There just is no need for new books for such insignificant changes.

They could offset different sports across different cycles so that they have similar revenue each year.

If this had a "Like" button I would click on it.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

And now the gnashing of teeth about the semicircle violation actually being added to the rule book will begin.

I'm just relieved that they didn't completely forget about it again. How much you wanna bet this one was already decided in the hotel lobby before the committee ever saw a conference table?

More important then the rule itself will be the supporting case plays. There is a whole range of truths and myths about how to handle this violation and any complicating fouls. I thought the pre-season guide and the interps last year did a decent job of laying out those situations. Problem is....many officials, especially new ones....never read that stuff.

Originally Posted by Rich

15 seconds for a sub on a DQ player. Wonder what the horn sequence will be.

I would hope no warning horn at all. I always thought the warning horn five seconds in was stupid, and most table personnel had no idea how to handle that anyway. My thinking is that it's the coach's responsibility to know that once he's notified, his 15 seconds is soon to start and when the horn sounds, he better have a sub identified and standing up. For me, I probably give him one final chance to stop screwing around ("Coach, I need a sub right now!") and absent an immediate response I'll consider a T.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not see this enough to matter. At least it is in the book now and not a speculation as to if we call a T or not.

I saw it a fair amount. Typically I'll see one of two outcomes: either the sub is already on his way to the table when I'm notifying the coach, or the coach milks it for every second he can get. I don't see much in between.

Your remark implies that the rule wasn't clear in the past on when a T is appropriate. I disagree. The rule has always been clear, but officials often give a lot of leeway. I'm not sure this will change just because we remove five seconds from the interval. Because both 2-p and 3-p mechanics call for the calling official to stay tableside, that official, who has probably already irked the coach for DQ'ing his player, now is left to "pile on" and enforce the replacement interval. So there's a natural hesitation to enforce a T when you already just DQ'd a player. To make the rule effective, it will take heavy-duty state and assignor support for whacking coaches in this situation, and I just don't envision much of an appetite for that.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I would hope no warning horn at all. I always thought the warning horn five seconds in was stupid, and most table personnel had no idea how to handle that anyway.

This is the best solution. I've run into the same issue with table personnel even after having pre-gamed with them. 5 seconds and then a horn was just silly.

[OKREF]

Devils Advocate here.....Is the bench now considered non playing personal? I don't think the bench is considered non playing personal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Your remark implies that the rule wasn't clear in the past on when a T is appropriate. I disagree. The rule has always been clear, but officials often give a lot of leeway.

My comments were not about the D'Q interval butt he FT rules. I think you are lumping my comments into someone else's comments.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My comments were not about the D'Q interval butt he FT rules. I think you are lumping my comments into someone else's comments.



Peace

Ahh. You quoted issues regarding both, and I thought you were talking about the interval. My mistake, sorry.