NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[Mregor]

My only concern, and I'm not sure if someone already posted because I didn't read all 6 pages, I hope the coaches don't see this as a wasted opportunity like they are entitled to a freebie each game. Like taking a TO down by 12 with 0:30 remaining just because they can. No free shots. I know some coaches who will see it that way and some who would never consider it. I'd rather not stop a running clock for any reason.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Connecticut uses 99% IAABO (not NFHS) mechanics.

I can't wait to see if:

1) Connecticut switches to two hand reporting.

2) Connecticut switches to orally stating numbers rather than numerals (as we currently do), i.e., orally state, "Twenty-three", instead of, "Two. Three".

Connecticut wants you to say "Two-Three"?

When they tell you to pay your dues, do they say it will be "Five-Five dollars"?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Connecticut wants you to say "Two-Three"? When they tell you to pay your dues, do they say it will be "Five-Five dollars"?

Been that way for over thirty-five years. That's the way rookie officials are taught, and that's the way officials are evaluated.

Also, our annual board dues are One Two Five dollars.

Maybe things will change with the new two hand reporting, if we go in that direction using our IAABO mechanics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Connecticut wants you to say "Two-Three"?

When they tell you to pay your dues, do they say it will be "Five-Five dollars"?

There was a time when it was recommended in many literature that is how you reported. That was the case when I started. Now that being said, I did it for years to slow me down and not say multiple syllables for numbers. Never really had a problem with that method either. But I do understand why those do not like it, but again it was the way it was taught and the table people never were confused. I know the point was to stay away from the "teen..." numbers because they were multiple syllables.

Peace

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, our annual board dues are One Two Five dollars.

Wow (assuming the decimal point goes where I suspect it does). What do you get for that big chunk of cash? Wow, again.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Wow (assuming the decimal point goes where I suspect it does). What do you get for that big chunk of cash? Wow, again.

$125.00 is our fixed annual dues, no matter how many games you work, add to that a 7% fee based on our earnings.

[BigCat]

As long as numbers are being discussed...RIP 007

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

$125.00 is our fixed annual dues, no matter how many games you work, add to that a 7% fee based on our earnings.

Is that for the local association, the state association, any national (NFHS) membership?

[Rich]

Our annual dues are about that much, too, but they also include an NASO membership as our entire association belongs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that for the local association, the state association, any national (NFHS) membership?

IAABO local, IAABO state, IAABO international, and CIAC (state interscholastic sports governing body) officials association. Connecticut basketball officials, 100% all IAABO, don't belong to the NFHS, in fact, if a basketball official doesn't work another NFHS sport, it's almost impossible to join the NFHS as a basketball official (Arbiter muddies the water).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO local, IAABO state, IAABO international, and CIAC (state interscholastic sports governing body) officials association. Connecticut basketball officials, 100% all IAABO, don't belong to the NFHS, in fact, if a basketball official doesn't work another NFHS sport, it's almost impossible to join the NFHS as a basketball official (Arbiter muddies the water).

This was the problem that I had with IAABO. Too many levels of bureaucracy leading to everyone having their hand in your pocket. Someone has to pay for those national conventions which they hold!

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is too much involvement in the game from the coaches. We have gone from captains talking to officials and picking FT shooters to coaches doing that, from no coaching box to 6 feet, to 14 feet, to 28 feet, and from players requesting time-outs to coaches doing it during play.

The rules committee has lost the proper balance and coaches are now over-emphasized. It's unfortunate. The trend is now to give coaches more freedoms and more power, yet less responsibility.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is too much involvement in the game from the coaches. We have gone from captains talking to officials and picking FT shooters to coaches doing that, from no coaching box to 6 feet, to 14 feet, to 28 feet, and from players requesting time-outs to coaches doing it during play.

The rules committee has lost the proper balance and coaches are now over-emphasized. It's unfortunate. The trend is now to give coaches more freedoms and more power, yet less responsibility.

I agree completely, and I think it's yet anothertrickle-down from college. Coaches are the most important personalities in college basketball because their year-to-year presence provides the continuity needed by the big dollar TV contracts. Players turn over in one to three years so coaching personality is the only consistent factor in the college game and is the major way in which the game ismarketed. (sure, there are exceptions, such as the tournament Cinderella teams that emerge every late March)

Yes, coaches in all sports provide direction, but in no other sport do we see coaches hollering instructions virtually every second of every game. Extending the coaching box is more than a policing issue, it shows an unfortunate NFHS buy-in to the marketing of coaches and the continued diminution of what should be its core goal of letting the kids play. We don't allow coaches to stand at second base, or on the blue line, or next to to the umpire during a goal-line stand, why is it OK for them to wander all the way down the court.

The excuse given, that smaller box serves to "limit the level of communication between coach and players" shows this rule change to be a solution in search of a problem.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This was the problem that I had with IAABO. Too many levels of bureaucracy leading to everyone having their hand in your pocket. Someone has to pay for those national conventions which they hold!

Having worked multiple states, I am a fan of IAABO, because it's training is better than what I've seen in non-IAABO states and its motto of one interpretation promotes consistency

I have no problem kicking in a few more bucks so the board interpreter can attend a convention; the pre-season rules and interpretation sessions run by folks coming back from IAABO are more thorough, and show better understanding of the the relationship between rules and reffing than those in non-IAABO jurisdictions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Yes, coaches in all sports provide direction, but in no other sport do we see coaches hollering instructions virtually every second of every game. Extending the coaching box is more than a policing issue, it shows an unfortunate NFHS buy-in to the marketing of coaches and the continued diminution of what should be its core goal of letting the kids play. We don't allow coaches to stand at second base, or on the blue line, or next to to the umpire during a goal-line stand, why is it OK for them to wander all the way down the court.

In football they allow coaches to be on the sideline for most of the field. What does standing on a base or not standing on a base have to do with this issue? Coaches in many sports including baseball have privileges that extend beyond the actual playing of the game. In baseball that is the only sport that allows a coach to stop the game just to argue a judgment that is being called by an official. So though a coach is not allowed to stand on second base, he can certainly go to second base if he does not like a call there.

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

The excuse given, that smaller box serves to "limit the level of communication between coach and players" shows this rule change to be a solution in search of a problem.

Well I might agree if not every level to some extend had this ability to move that far. Even college is now extending their coaching box this coming year. I got tired of having to worry about where a coach was standing for the most part when they were not doing or saying anything.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I agree completely, and I think it's yet anothertrickle-down from college. Coaches are the most important personalities in college basketball because their year-to-year presence provides the continuity needed by the big dollar TV contracts. Players turn over in one to three years so coaching personality is the only consistent factor in the college game and is the major way in which the game ismarketed. (sure, there are exceptions, such as the tournament Cinderella teams that emerge every late March)

Yes, coaches in all sports provide direction, but in no other sport do we see coaches hollering instructions virtually every second of every game. Extending the coaching box is more than a policing issue, it shows an unfortunate NFHS buy-in to the marketing of coaches and the continued diminution of what should be its core goal of letting the kids play. We don't allow coaches to stand at second base, or on the blue line, or next to to the umpire during a goal-line stand, why is it OK for them to wander all the way down the court.

The excuse given, that smaller box serves to "limit the level of communication between coach and players" shows this rule change to be a solution in search of a problem.

They don't get the whole court. They get 1/3 of that.

Your attempt to minimalize coaches is noted, although I think it's misguided. Kids come and go. The best programs are usually that way because of the influence and continuity the coach provides.