NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

Thank you.



This is how I see it, too. It's a positive.



Coach acts up. Tweet. Warning. EVERYONE sees it. Now when the coach acts up again and I whack him (and I will), all I have to say is, "you were warned, it's in the book." And then I can shrug and walk away.

Concur with walt and Rich. Thanks for the background info, walt! Very well written and described.

The other day I opined that these were the best rules changes in at least five years. Overnight, it dawned on me that (uniforms notwithstanding) they all had to do with officiating tools and mechanics. No wonder I like them so much! But nationwide, sportsmanship in basketball is at critical mass right now, as surveys, observations and this forum have pointed out. So the committee needed to focus on sportsmanship and that's exactly what they did. I think this is why I'm very proud of the outcome this year; it broadens our tool belts as officials, which in turn hopefully restores decency to behavior in high school basketball. This, in turn, may improve the ability of states to attract and retain new officials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by walt

That is what I was told they want. The wrote in the warning option because they believe A LOT more officials will be amenable to warn as opposed to going right to the technical foul. They told me that rule change was unanimously approved because it puts the onus directly on the coach after a warning and gives the crew exactly what you said, "Coach, you were warned." They want the type of warning recorded so the coach cannot say "But I wasn't warned for that!" They also give the option for both warnings to be issued at the same time for a single act. I like it.

Unfortunately when a coach's behavior warrants skipping the warning and going straight to the tech they will have it in their head that they should have been officially warned first.

[LRZ]

There may be some disagreement about what offenses are "major," thus meriting immediate Ts. If, because of uncertainty about where to draw the line between min or and major offenses, referees feel compelled to warn officially first, coaches will get an additional bite of the apple. Although there may well be a big HTBT contextual element, some further guidance may be necessary, or, at least, helpful.

[tnolan]

while some think this is another tool for officials to use, i think it just further complicates an already convoluted process by adding an unnecessary layer. all officials have different thresholds and tolerances already for what behavior constitutes for a technical, and now that will just carry down to what is and what isn't considered behavior warranting a misconduct warning. and being such a grey area of instances, it's near impossible for all officials (even in the same chapter) to get on the same page. while one night a coach could be warned, another night he/she could be T'd for the same instance. and even 2 separate coaches in the same game. I'm not saying that it can't be used properly, but fear the lack of consistency will result in more issues, instead of less as proposed.
i understand the logic behind the addition, especially coming from some other sports where it works...but basketball is not even close to any other sport in terms of coach/referee relationship and a million other things as well...and i just believe it will ultimately give coaches a longer leash. IMO we've just added another tool to their belt, not ours. TWO actually! extending the box to the end line WILL result in the opportunity to give the Lead official an earful, more often than it will increase the coaches ability to coach their team.

[SC Official]

Rich made a good point about arguing the warning.

Walt, to confirm, a misconduct warning will be the entire bench's one warning, regardless of whether the offender is the head coach, an assistant, sub, etc., correct?

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

[BryanV21]

I believe that if an official manages the game well, the point about coaches getting mad that they were t'd up before being warned will not be a problem. I mean, how often will a coach go from "zero to 60" and warrant a tech before a warning, anyway?

In ten years (yes, compared to many of you I'm still a kid) I don't think I've ever t'd up a coach before some type of unofficial warning. Each time I can tell a coach he was warned before getting whacked. The official warning, like has been stated over and over, just lets everyone know of the warning so when the coach acts up again (or whatever) it's not a surprise to anyone in the gym, watching on tv, or listening on the radio.

BTW, I don't care if I'm told to report fouls with one hand or two.

[walt]

Everyone's line of tolerance is different and will always be different. However, once the warning is issued, the line is brightly drawn. A coach going to the endline to tell an official what he/she thinks of a particular call(s) could, and under this rule, probably should result in a warning at a minimum. The warning is a very effective tool if used properly. I can see a lot of officials using it because it shifts the burden for behavior back to the coach. If he/she is not smart enough to abide by it, that is on them, not us.

According to my guys, yes, a warning for one (assistant, bench player, etc) is a warning for all. However, comments from the bench can warrant a T without warning as can comments from a head coach. Each of us will have to determine and pre-game what we will warn for and what we will consider egregious.

[JRutledge]

I equate this with the "Stop sign" that everyone loves to tell others how great and universal it is when used properly.

So why would we agree on the usage of this tool?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

...extending the box to the end line WILL result in the opportunity to give the Lead official an earful, more often than it will increase the coaches ability to coach their team.

That will be a perfect opportunity to practice putting warnings in the book.

[walt]

Because for some people who are uncomfortable or not sure how to interact or communicate with coaches now have a way to do that without a "stop sign" or any communication. They simply blow the whistle, "He/She has been warned'" and then go tell the scorer. I think people will be more comfortable doing that then having to actually communicate.

May be good or bad.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walt

Because for some people who are uncomfortable or not sure how to interact or communicate with coaches now have a way to do that without a "stop sign" or any communication. They simply blow the whistle, "He/She has been warned'" and then go tell the scorer. I think people will be more comfortable doing that then having to actually communicate.

May be good or bad.

The stop sign did not work and does not work for everyone. Heck some just because of their size do not have to do things as someone that is much shorter for a lot of reasons.

Peace

[CJP]

Originally Posted by tnolan

while some think this is another tool for officials to use, i think it just further complicates an already convoluted process by adding an unnecessary layer. all officials have different thresholds and tolerances already for what behavior constitutes for a technical, and now that will just carry down to what is and what isn't considered behavior warranting a misconduct warning. and being such a grey area of instances, it's near impossible for all officials (even in the same chapter) to get on the same page. while one night a coach could be warned, another night he/she could be T'd for the same instance. and even 2 separate coaches in the same game. I'm not saying that it can't be used properly, but fear the lack of consistency will result in more issues, instead of less as proposed.
i understand the logic behind the addition, especially coming from some other sports where it works...but basketball is not even close to any other sport in terms of coach/referee relationship and a million other things as well...and i just believe it will ultimately give coaches a longer leash. IMO we've just added another tool to their belt, not ours. TWO actually! extending the box to the end line WILL result in the opportunity to give the Lead official an earful, more often than it will increase the coaches ability to coach their team.

The inconsistency between technical fouls for officials is currently a problem and something needs to be done so I like the new rule change. Coaches can read officials and know how far to push. Officials who get pushed and never issue the technical have a new tool at their disposal. Hopefully this will encourage those guys who are a little timid to get things under control. I personally wish more technical fouls for unsportsmanlike behavior are called. At the minimum, this is a wake up call to coaches that they need to clean up their act.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

The inconsistency between technical fouls for officials is currently a problem and something needs to be done so I like the new rule change. Coaches can read officials and know how far to push. Officials who get pushed and never issue the technical have a new tool at their disposal. Hopefully this will encourage those guys who are a little timid to get things under control. I personally wish more technical fouls for unsportsmanlike behavior are called. At the minimum, this is a wake up call to coaches that they need to clean up their act.

Coaches do not treat us all the same and never will either. So you cannot have "consistency" when coaches do not treat us the exact same. Some coaches know from previous history with that official not to question that official. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes that is a bad thing. Or coaches will treat one official on the crew differently as they do not know one of the individuals at all, but know the other officials very well. So we will never need all officials to use this. I do not think that was the ultimate point. I think the issue was more about this is a tool we can use. Some supervisors will be very adamant about using it and others will suggest we just T them up.

Peace

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So we will never need all officials to use this. I do not think that was the ultimate point. I think the issue was more about this is a tool we can use. Some supervisors will be very adamant about using it and others will suggest we just T them up.

I could get on board with that part of it. possibly a useful tool for some where others have already refined a way in which to handle this part of the game.
personally, i've never had a problem with conveying to the coach that their behavior or their benches' behavior is approaching a technical foul call. and anyone outside of the head coach, doesn't need to have any knowledge of that, so making it "official" does nothing for me.

Originally Posted by SC Official

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

True! Plus if a head coach is acting up, I usually find that their assistants are as well. So I can slap a warning on the assistant and hopefully the head coach will get the picture. Boom.