NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[CJP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Of course everyone gets treated different that's why I mentioned that coaches can read an official and know how far to push. Officials NOT addressing behavior the same (inconsistent) lead to coaches getting away with certain things on different nights. This is bad because players and fans are receiving mixed signals about sportsmanship.

Whether or not this was the ultimate point does not really matter. We got to this point for a reason and was not simply to give us another tool. Sportsmanship is an issue and I hope this will help clean it up is all that matters.

[walt]

Originally Posted by tnolan

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.

Like you said, it may be helpful to a crew member who is not as comfortable. Not saying you do this, in fact I know I have and then had to change the behavior, too often we think of ourselves first and not the crew first. So while you may be comfortable dealing with a coach through communication, the warning, either issued by you or through your partner, can help the crew.

[walt]

Originally Posted by raymond

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

+1

[walt]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

And the more they argue that point, the closer they may get to the locker room!

[walt]

That is why pre-gaming where the lines are and what each member of the crew defines as egregious is even more critical. The crew also needs to understand that once a warning has been issued, there are no more warnings for that offense. In the case of the warning for being out of the box and saying/acting something in non-egregious sense, and having both warnings issued at the same time, no more warnings period from anyone on the crew.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by walt

Like you said, it may be helpful to a crew member who is not as comfortable. Not saying you do this, in fact I know I have and then had to change the behavior, too often we think of ourselves first and not the crew first. So while you may be comfortable dealing with a coach through communication, the warning, either issued by you or through your partner, can help the crew.

Understood, but in my area, we convey that a coach (or player for that matter) has been warned, to the entire crew already...without this change. So for that reason, it seems unnecessary to me because I've basically already been doing it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CJP

Of course everyone gets treated different that's why I mentioned that coaches can read an official and know how far to push. Officials NOT addressing behavior the same (inconsistent) lead to coaches getting away with certain things on different nights. This is bad because players and fans are receiving mixed signals about sportsmanship.

Whether or not this was the ultimate point does not really matter. We got to this point for a reason and was not simply to give us another tool. Sportsmanship is an issue and I hope this will help clean it up is all that matters.

I do not think it is that deep. Mixed messages? I do not care what someone else allows or does not allow. We all have a different tolerance level right or wrong and this is not going to solve that issue if you feel it is really an issue. I do not honestly.

You roll that dice, you might just crap out.

Peace

[CJP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it is that deep. Mixed messages? I do not care what someone else allows or does not allow. We all have a different tolerance level right or wrong and this is not going to solve that issue if you feel it is really an issue. I do not honestly.

You roll that dice, you might just crap out.

Peace

Well that went sideways. I didn't mean for things to get all philosophical. To be blunt, I hope this new rule helps. Sheesh. I am going fishing now.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't see how it loosens standards.

To me, the verbal warning before a technical now is a wtitten warning. And the subsequent technical -- I can say that the coach was warned.

I havnt thought it through but my gut reaction is it helps coaches more than officials. For me and other old farts not much will change. When i give a stop sign everybody knows it...and if only the coach knows it...im ok with that.

I do feel coaches get away with things they shouldnt because officials dont want to "rock the boat" for one reason or another. There's no warning, there's no T. I guess my knee jerk thought is that some wont warn and T and now asking them to stop game and put it in book really isnt going to happen. Pushes them farther away from addressing bad actors. Again, i havnt thought about it deeply.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I havnt thought it through but my gut reaction is it helps coaches more than officials. ... I guess my knee jerk thought is that some wont warn and T and now asking them to stop game and put it in book really isnt going to happen. Pushes them farther away from addressing bad actors.

This ^^

And it gives coaches 14 more feet with which to act a fool.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ODog

This ^^

And it gives coaches 14 more feet with which to act a fool.

So warn or whack him if he acts the fool. What's so hard about that?

It's 14 less feet we have to police, which should be a positive for all of us.

[Adam]

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.

I agree. My first thought when I heard about the change was, "great, now they're going to expect it every time." In reality, this gives us an officially prescribed tool. Many officials struggle with how to effectively issue those unwritten verbal warnings. By "effectively," I mean in a way that doesn't automatically escalate it to a T.

Very rarely do we need to call a T where we never had an opportunity to issue a warning. Add in the ability to stop play to issue an official warning, and that possibility almost goes away completely.

With this in place, the ones where we have to skip the warnings will call themselves.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It's 14 less feet we have to police, which should be a positive for all of us.

Agree.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SC Official

So warn or whack him if he acts the fool. What's so hard about that?

It's 14 less feet we have to police, which should be a positive for all of us.

I see it as 14 MORE feet that we have to police.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see it as 14 MORE feet that we have to police.

14 less feet for which the location of the coach has to be policed.