I wouldnt mind some admin T's here for apparel that isnt dangerous but the nfhs doesnt seem to want to do the bifurcation needed to make this work

Yeah, you add a technical foul to the mix and no one will ever enforce it.

We have the same and I've only seen it enacted twice this year in my games. 40 is too high.

I voted in favor of the two shot bonus with 5 fouls in a quarter and in favor of the shot clocks, which we use here. Going from no shot clock to shot clock has been a good change IMO.

Pretty much. I hope they leave this alone. Being able to send players out or not allow them to enter is perfect.

It's gotten a little better this year, but it's still there.:(

Perhaps it's been talked about enough that it's simply accepted by now, but I can't help but feel the "they won't call it if the penalty is too harsh" thing is rubbish.

Why change a rule simply because it's not being handed out correctly or consistently? How about teaching officials to do their jobs and do what the rule book says? This reeks of the inmates running the asylum. Isn't that what points of emphasis are for?

Look how many times they've changed the penalry for non contact swinging elbows and leaving the court.

How is that a response to the post you quoted? Does it mean you don't feel the need to follow the rule book because there's a decent chance the rule will change in a few years?

Hell, Bob's post about providing a link was so he could see the questionnaire.

What does this mean? What does the second part of this change--one-and-one at 5 and one-and-one at 7?

1. Beginning with a team’s fifth foul in each quarter, shoot one-and-one; and for the seventh foul, award a bonus free throw only if the first free throw is successful.

That was a forum bug.

I didnt make that point because it was good or bad. There was a reason why those rules were changed because it wasn't enforced as written.

Several years ago when the the leaving the court T, we had the guy that im certain was single handedly responsible for getting rule changed to a violation. He called 18 T's for leaving the court in a single game.

We have mercy rule in Iowa. 35+ points is running clock unless losing team gets it below 20. It is wonderful.

Just my 2 pennies:

1) Rolled waistbands have no effect on me.

2) Anything to make it more like college is good (coach can't call TO during live ball, shot clock, etc.)

3) Mercy rule should be left up to state associations.

4) All undergarments/sleeves/wrist&headbands/etc. should be either white or black. White if home and black if visitor.

5) Eliminate jump ball, captain's meeting, and jacket requirement for officials.

6) Reduce timeouts by one full.

7) Require officials' shoes to be ALL black and eliminate rules that are never enforced. :)

I am surprised there is so much interest in tweaking uniform rules here. Haven't we learned in recent years how frustrating annual changes can be? If it's not a safety issue, just LITFA, IMHO. That said, this year was the easiest I've ever had enforcing uniform rules. Some officials in the area still seem to think the T-shirt rule is tied to the bands/tights/sleeves rule, but other than that enforcement has been easy and consistent...and coaches and players have adapted. Some teams have even gone away from accessories altogether because it's too hard and expensive for teams to all get on the same page. I think this may have been a subtly desired outcome by the committee.

In other thoughts about the survey:

1. What the heck is meant by "Would you favor, beginning with a team’s fifth foul in each quarter, shoot one-and-one; and for the seventh foul, award a bonus free throw only if the first free throw is successful?" Huh? :confused: Aren't those two things the same?

2. Why in the world would you ask, "Would you favor initiating 30-second shot clock for boys and 35-second shot clock for girls?" First of all, that's the opposite of the way it used to be in college and currently still is in CA. Second, if the NCAA has had the common sense to use the same shot clock time for both men and women, why in the world can't the NFHS? And lastly, asking the question in this form forces me to choose a yes or no answer for elements of a question that don't mesh with the underlying core question, which is, "Would you favor initiating a shot clock....period!?"

3. Why isn't there a section for free text comments at the end of the survey? I would have loved to have clarified a few things, such as:
a) I answered that I have not observed two-handed reporting in my area. That's because we have very disciplined officials here who follow the manual. I never got the chance to articulate that even though I haven't seen it doesn't mean I wouldn't LOVE to be able to use two-handed reporting. Furthermore, I didn't get the chance to describe how in the youth games in which I use two- handed reporting, no table has ever NOT been able to understand what I was doing.
b) How the real question is whether we should have a shot clock or not at all (see above).
c) Etc., etc.

Would it kill the NFHS to hire a professional program evaluator (I'm sure there's one out there somewhere who also happens to be an official) to create and administer these annual surveys? They are SO flawed....makes me cringe.

Probably written by the same person that wrote the TC rule change.

30 is too low. We've had state tournament games lately where a team down 26 in the 3rd won by 1 in regulation, and a team down 30 in the 3rd, and 26 w/6 min. to play, lose by four.

Maybe it's not 30--but it's too close to ruin those kind of finishes.

Ah. I should have figured it was something like that.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk