NFHS Rules Changes 2016-17

[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.

[JetMetFan]

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. 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.

If you don't have a warning horn there's always an opening for a coach to be able to say they didn't know when their time started, etc. The warning horn standardizes everything (i.e., "Coach, you now have 15 seconds and counting.")

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1-20 NEW: Non-playing personnel, e.g., spirit participants, media, shall remain outside of the playing area during a 30-second or less time-out during the game.

Non-playing personnel shall stand outside the free throw lane lines extended toward the sidelines throughout the game.

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."

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

The problem with 4 is that there's nothing in the book to clarify this. The actual fix is much simpler, but they won't do it. Eventually, as time moves on, people will start enforcing the rule as written rather than as intended, then they'll just change it to the way it's being enforced.