NFHS Rules Changes 2016-17

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Hopefully the wording is changed on this one since there isn't any such thing as a time-out of less than 30 seconds. How about..."Non-playing personnel, e.g., spirit participants, media, shall remain outside of the playing area at all times except during an intermission or a 60-second time-out."

I think this honestly is so that if there is ever a change in the timeout structure or a state uses some form of time-out less than 30 seconds, no one is splitting hairs with "It was not a 30 second time-out." Probably not that big of a deal, but that is why the change was made IMO to that wording. And if they even changed the times of a time-out, they do not have to go back and clarify this position.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think this honestly is so that if there is ever a change in the timeout structure or a state uses some form of time-out less than 30 seconds, no one is splitting hairs with "It was not a 30 second time-out." Probably not that big of a deal, but that is why the change was made IMO to that wording. And if they even changed the times of a time-out, they do not have to go back and clarify this position.

Peace

Agree. I do a lot of policy writing in my day job, and two things you learn when writing manuals and instructions are A) make the language as flexible as possible and B) don't write yourself into a corner.

I contacted the NFHS office directly a few weeks ago hoping to submit a last-minute rules change proposal. I got passed around quite a bit but finally spoke with a lady named Lori Brown who told me that I had missed the deadline for this year but emailed me the proposal form. Apparently submissions still go through the states but this is the form we are supposed to use.

The rules I think need changing are:

1. Goaltending rule, change to college/NBA rule where ball cannot be blocked off the backboard
2. Remove resumption of play procedure, make it a delay of game warning instead
3. Change delay of game warning to college rule where you get two warnings per type of warning
4. Clarify team control during throw-in only applies to fouls, not back court violation

Any others? I volunteer to write up the first three on my list.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I contacted the NFHS office directly a few weeks ago hoping to submit a last-minute rules change proposal. I got passed around quite a bit but finally spoke with a lady named Lori Brown who told me that I had missed the deadline for this year but emailed me the proposal form. Apparently submissions still go through the states but this is the form we are supposed to use.

The rules I think need changing are:

1. Goaltending rule, change to college/NBA rule where ball cannot be blocked off the backboard
2. Remove resumption of play procedure, make it a delay of game warning instead
3. Change delay of game warning to college rule where you get two warnings per type of warning
4. Clarify team control during throw-in only applies to fouls, not back court violation

Any others? I volunteer to write up the first three on my list.

#1. Why. It is often harder to judge since no official is looking across the plane of the backboard....on the way up/down is easier when you're looking at it from outside.
#2. OK....no big deal.
#3. Two warnings per type of delay? Might as well delete the delay warnings completely in that case.
#4. Yep.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The rules I think need changing are:

1. Goaltending rule, change to college/NBA rule where ball cannot be blocked off the backboard
2. Remove resumption of play procedure, make it a delay of game warning instead
3. Change delay of game warning to college rule where you get two warnings per type of warning
4. Clarify team control during throw-in only applies to fouls, not back court violation

Any others? I volunteer to write up the first three on my list.

1. Doesn't happen enough. And you add one more element to judge. The rule is fine for HS.

2. No problem there.

3. The rule is fine the way it is.

4. Well they already have done this, they just need to make a editorial change. I do not see anyone seeing this as a problem but mostly those that are in places like this (nothing wrong with that BTW).

Peace