As for the last second shot possibilities, I was at an NCAA Women's camp and the discussion there was 4 last second shot opportunities adds excitement to the game, makes the officials stay engaged, promotes game clock and shot clock awareness, etc. To each their own. Being an NCAA women's official, I like it.

Our state interpreter shared this with me. Both he and the NFHS State liaisons wanted to see the one and one eliminated with 2 shots after the 5th in a quarter and a reset of the foul count each quarter. They also wanted the 28' coaches box with a warning for the first violation of the boundary, 28' mark or end line, (coach completely outside of the boundary) to be recorded in the scorebook (assuming no egregious behavior) followed by a technical foul and loss of the box for any subsequently observed boundary violation. The also wanted any uniform/apparel violations to be dealt with a through a technical foul to the head coach similar to the pre-game dunking rule because they didn't feel the "you cannot play until rectified" is working. They wanted the officials to have no choice or discretion which then puts it on the coaches who will get the point after a technical foul or two. In our state, three techs to a coach results in a suspension.

Excitement is great, but NF rules right now does not have a shot clock. You have teams actually slow down for the final minute or so for those shots (so you have no action). I am not sure I want a shot clock either as we have a lot of problems with the shot clock with small college. I am not confident that a shot clock is going to make the game better at the high school level with all the potential an real mistakes that are made. Yes I know states use it, but that does not mean everyone is going to apply it properly. Good for those states, but the NF at least should give the option to not use a shot clock if they ever change the rule.

Peace

From my experience watching CA high school games with the shot clock, it's long enough that it rarely matters. The two best things about it, IMHO, are (1) at the end of quarters not having more than the 35 seconds of dead play that the shot clock allows (though HS teams are not good at things like 2-for-1 clock management) and (2) it, to a degree, minimizes the intentional fouling at the end of close games, as there is a limit on the length of stalling. The latter, to me, is the best reason to keep it. (And yes, especially at understaffed tournaments and some schools, there are consistent problems with the managing of the shot clock.)

Without jump balls or resetting fouls (neither of which I'm in favor of), it's hard to see any reason to keep quarters, as they don't mean anything -- just an artificial break in the game.

I do like 1-and-1. Part of it, I confess, is that's how it was when I played. But a larger part is I like the fact that a team trying to get back in the game gets an advantage from having fouled less. I think double bonus at 10 strikes a nice balance.

I work many HS games in CA and while the operating of the shot clock isn't perfect, it does make the game better for both of the reasons you list.

I have advocated playing in halves for years, but the trend is obviously going the opposite way now. I don't care for what are two needless stoppages. I also would prefer that we eliminate 30-second time-outs and have four full-length TOs instead.

If the NFHS game ends up sticking with quarters, I'm all for resetting the fouls as I believe that it will result in fewer FT attempts. I also support eliminating the 1&1 as it would get rid of one more way in which the game can get screwed up.

I'm on the opposite side of your comeback stance. I think that the team with the lead near the end of the game shouldn't be put at a disadvantage by the trailing team fouling. I don't like that they can trade 2pts max for an attempt at a 3. Yes, the team with the lead can foul too in order to prevent 3pt attempts, and I hate it when both teams employ that strategy and the game devolves into a FT contest for the final 90 seconds. It is awful and a farce. I would even support a rule change to prevent that in which any foul committed outside of the 3pt line during the final two minutes of the 4th quarter or any extra period results in 3 FTs.

NFHS just tweeted the ice hockey rules change press release. That must mean basketball is coming soon. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! :D

Hours?? Days?? Weeks??

Peace

http://bit.ly/2q7Goy6

It is time! Rejoice!

Finally you get your silly "two handed" reporting. Hope all is happy now (such a non-issue IMO).

Peace

JRut, let me have my moment. ;)

To summarize, five changes:

1) Official warnings for coach misconduct
2) Official warnings for coaching box violations
3) 28-foot coaching box
4) Uniform stuff
5) Two-hand reporting

NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes
 

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/offici...in-basketball/

1) Official warnings for coach misconduct
2) Official warnings for coaching box violations
3) 28-foot coaching box
4) Uniform stuff
5) Two-hand reporting

Still only 1 hand for the number of the player. The other hand is for the number of free throws only. So, not quite the NBA yet...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Huh?

In the NBA, officials give the number with both hands. So, number 23 would be given as a 2 with one hand and 3 with the other. In NFHS, we give the 2, followed by 3, with the same hand.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I get that the sentence was not worded great in the release, but we will be reporting players with 2 hands.

Note the word "shall" - it is not an option to report with one hand.

And it's mandatory, too, if you follow NFHS mechanics.

Mandatory? I doubt that will be the stance. Even if it is, states will do whatever they want at the end. They do that already with minor issues that we never discuss here.

Peace

NFHS New Rules Press Release
 

From the NFHS website a few miutes ago:


Official Warning for Misconduct Given to Coaches in Basketball
By NFHS on May 11, 2017


Effective with the 2017-18 high school basketball season, play will be stopped and an official warning will be given to the head coach – and recorded in the scorebook – for misconduct by the coach or other bench personnel unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed.

This new rule was one of the five changes recommended by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Basketball Rules Committee at its April 10-12 meeting in Indianapolis. All changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

In addition to misconduct violations related to Rule 10-5, the head coach will be officially warned for the first violation of Rule 10-6-1 regarding the coaching box.

Rules 4-48-1 and 4-48-2 will both have a note stating that a warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

“Stopping play and making sure that the bench and the coach know that an official warning has been given sends a clear message to everyone in the gym and impacts the behavior of the coach, and in some cases the behavior of the opposing coach,” said Theresia Wynns, NFHS director of sports and officials and liaison to the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. “This change in behavior creates a better atmosphere and, many times, avoids the need to administer a technical foul.”

In other changes, the rules committee approved enlarging the coaching box from 14 feet to 28 feet. The coaching box now shall be bounded by a line drawn 28 feet from the end line toward the division line. A line drawn from the sideline toward the team bench becomes the end of the coaching box toward the end line. State associations may alter the length and placement of the 28-foot coaching box.

“The committee thought the restriction of the (14-foot) coaching box limited the level of communication between the coach and players,” Wynns said. “Allowing a coach freedom to move within the new box between the 28-foot mark and the end line provides a coach more access to his or her players.”

Changes in Rules 3-4-1d and 3-4-4 regarding uniforms were approved by the committee, including restrictions on identifying names that can be placed in the allowable area of the jersey. Identifying names on uniforms must adhere to the following: school name, school nickname, school logo, player’s name and/or abbreviation of the official school name. The panel in the shoulder area on the back of the jersey may be used for placing an identifying name as well.

The committee also approved a change in the way officials signal a foul against a player. After verbally informing the offender, the official shall use fingers on two hands to indicate to the scorer the number of the offender and the number of free throws.

“This change was made to minimize reporting errors that occur between the officials and the scorekeepers,” Wynns said. “Two-handed reporting is easier for the scorekeepers to see and comprehend, and it is less confusing.”

I'm not sure how you interpreted anything other than the fact that two-hand reporting is now the standard in FED, even if the sentence was poorly worded.

And I'm with Rich, the wording of the release implies that one hand will no longer be optional under strict FED mechanics.

Define "shall" in some other way.

Hmm, I see what you mean. It could be interpreted both ways, but I think you are right.

So, are we giving the numbers with the table's perspective in mind? For example, the number 23 would be given '2' on the right hand and '3' on the left?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes.

Don't need to define it. I just doubt that my state for example is going to make that the only option of how you report. That will ultimately be up to our Head Clinician, but he liked one hand reporting when the college made the change (and that was an option).

Again, no sweat off my back. This was a non-issue. It is not going to make things "better" it is just different.

Peace

As I said, states can do what they want. My point had to do with strict NFHS mechanics.

For years, up until the very end, the purists' talking points about one-handed reporting were that high school table personnel were inexperienced and needed to be coddled with simplicity. And all of a sudden, Theresa says:

“This change was made to minimize reporting errors that occur between the officials and the scorekeepers. Two-handed reporting is easier for the scorekeepers to see and comprehend, and it is less confusing.”

I chuckle at the sudden---and welcome---dose of common sense.

All in all, this is the best set of rule changes to come out of the NFHS in the last five years, at least. Kudos to the committee. Well done. Now if the editors can just figure out how to word stuff correctly so there aren't officials out there that think they should report the player's number with one hand and the number of free throws with the other. ;)

I read it quickly.. two people could interpret it differently...

The dress is blue and black!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c6004561aa.jpg

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Rut, of course states can do what they want, as you point out on seemingly every thread. But the reality is that most states follow NFHS mechanics with one or two, if any, minor deviations. Two hands will become the standard in probably every strict-FED state now.

"After verbally informing the offender, the official shall use fingers on two hands to indicate to the scorer the number of the offender and the number of free throws."

Somehow I think we will still be using one hand to indicate "2 shots". But good to know that when I call a multiple foul on 3 players during unsuccessful 3-point try, I have options.

So now we have three types of official warnings we can issue...

1) Delay warnings (4 infractions)
2) Head coach/bench personnel misconduct
3) Head coach being outside the box

Or will (2) and (3) be lumped together as one "warning," with the next misconduct/box violation being a direct T?

Most state? Are you sure about this? I have been on this board for some time and there are many things that states do that do not follow the strict-FED positions. Heck just the shirts people wear are not stated as "allowed" by the NF mechanics or even rules. But I do not see people here trying to tell everyone why they should follow the shirt requirement which clearly stated to not be the bigger stripes or the grey shirts that were the rage over 10 years ago. And it cracks me up that this was so important, but other things not followed or stances were not followed and no one cared.

Again, this is such a non-issue. I am a college official that gladly uses two hands to report fouls at the Men's level. I do not think it is such a game changer as it was suggested it will be. We have people that cannot report very well with one hand, I do not think they will get better with two. And unless I read something, you still have to come to a stop and we know how many people hardly ever do that, because it is not cool. Oh, and JD Collins at the NCAA level wants officials to stop and report their fouls with two hands. But NBA wannabees will keep doing what they want to do either way. After all, the NBA has the best mechanics right?

Peace

Good question. If not lumped together, that means we have to be specific when telling the scorer what to document in the margin.

Also, a situation I'm pondering is when the coach comes a few steps on the floor to argue---maybe not visibly and vehemently enough to warrant an auto-T for misconduct---but far enough out where it's uncomfortable to the point where in the past you'd go straight to the T just because the coach was demonstrably out of the box. Will there be an expectation to issue a warning now instead? And will officials be questioned and judged by evaluators, assignors, etc., when they choose to skip warnings and go straight to Ts? In other words, there's a very grey line now.

Don't get me wrong, I like the official warning. I think it's a useful tool. But now that it's actually there in writing, coaches will expect it ("Don't I get a warning first?") and they'll whine like crazy when we choose to bypass it.

The absolutes won't be so absolute any more. This will take a little getting used to.

Every assigner will have a different viewpoint on this, too.

Sticky Wicket ...
 

Agree. Bottom line: I don't like the new rule.

I think, much like the sideline warning in football, the coach's warning can be an effective tool if used at the first sign of misbehavior. It is also more effective if you use it early in the game. But, you can be sure that coaches will complain loudly if you T them up without a warning now, even if the Note is in the new rule. I can imagine some coaches will try to game the system. On the other hand, I think many officials were worried about policing the coach's box or misbehavior when the only penalty was a Technical foul. The official warning might enable officials to better control those aspects of coaching behavior before it gets out of hand.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The majority of bench T's I've issued in my career were preceded by a stop sign and/or an "unofficial" warning. This rule doesn't change much for me except for blowing the whistle to let everyone in the gym know the coach/bench has been warned. The "major" infractions–on the court arguing demonstratively, throwing apparel/equipment, saying something about my mother, etc.–I'll still be penalizing without a warning, and the rule change backs me up on that regardless of what the coach whines about.

For fun, how about this case play: Team A's head coach is beyond the boundaries of the box, committing a "minor" misbehavior infraction (use your imagination). Do you (a) warn for misconduct, (b) warn for box violation, (c) issue two warnings, one for each infraction, or (d) whack?

I thought the same thing.

I wonder how many officials won't use common sense and will report the foul such that it's read left to right from the official's perspective rather than the scorer's.

No doubt a few initially. But this is where associations will need to earn their dues this fall.

Five minutes of practice in front of a mirror is all it takes. Right hand followed by left hand, and you can prep as you move to the reporting area. Only time this is a little tricky is when you have to score the goal first.

This isn't like learning how to play a cathedral organ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are all just changes for the sake of changes. Unimpactful nonsense.

And if anything, the warning stuff loosens the standards for unsportsmanlike behavior from the sideline rather than tightening them up.

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.

These are the most impactful and sensible changes the NFHS has made in years, absent the jersey stuff. The expanded box really has nothing to do with us except it means we get to do less policing of where the coach is standing along the sideline. The official warnings are a codified game management tool that a lot of good officials were already using, anyway, so I don't see how it loosens any standards. And two-hand reporting has been overdue; FED mechanics was the only set still requiring one hand until now.

I envision many old purists in my association crying foul that the NFHS is "trying to make us look like college officials." Our first meeting in September will be fun.

Underwhelmed ...
 

After sleeping on it:

https://youtu.be/3sWTnsemkIs

Maybe the Points of Emphasis will be more exciting?

At the NCAA-M's level we are supposed to T immediately for misconduct outside of the coach's box. Is that what happens all the time? No.

Here's hoping that the manual or rule book will specific the proper signaling.

Last night I had dinner with two guys, one is the little birdy who told me these changes were coming and the other is a friend of his who is on the rules committee. I’ll start with the two handed reporting. They agreed the press release is poorly written. This is what it means. Last season, some states were asked to informally survey table personnel and ask them about two handed versus one handed reporting of the fouler number. My state was one of them. Most responses were not surprisingly, “Huh?” or “I don’t really care” or “Whatever they want to do.” However, there was a clear preference for two handed reporting, hence the rule change. They put it in the RULE so as to standardize and mandate two handed reporting across the country for games played under NFHS rules. So, what it means is that an official shall report the fouler’s number using both hands at the same time with the right hand signify the first number and the second signifying the second number so they can easily seen and read by the scorer. They also want officials to stop saying “Three” “Four” instead of “Thirty-Four” and they believe this will accomplish that.

They said more discussion occurred related to warnings to the coaches. There are two possible and separate warnings. The first is for being completely out of the box (both feet out) whether on purpose or inadvertently and the second is for non-egregious behavior. The way it is currently written, the NFHS wants the play stopped IMMEDIATELY upon observation and the warning issued and recorded in the book with the accompanying reason regardless of when and what is happening in the game at the time. They guys last night believe this will be tweaked somewhat and gave this scenario as to why. Both warnings can be issued separately or possibly for the same action.

Team A steals the ball and is transitioning to a fast break. The Coach of Team B sees this and steps completely out of the box to stop the play and draw the warning. This is exactly how it is supposed to be officiated given the current wording. Of course we all know, if that happens, we may end up having to address egregious behavior from the Coach of Team A!!!

According to my guys, When this was raised during the NFHS meetings, leadership acknowledged that there are officials who will say “I didn’t stop the play because I DIDN’T SEE the coach out of the box because I was watching the play” even though in reality, they simply chose to ignore the Coach of Team B’s action because they didn’t want to take away the fast break. To that the NFHS leadership’s response was those officials have chosen to manipulate the game and chose to IGNORE a rule which goes against how the game is supposed to be officiated and is unfair to the other team because it allows illegal behavior to go unpunished. The also said that the Team B is risking two possible outcomes. The first is an official could deem his/her action as egregious and unsporting and assess a technical foul instead of a warning or, the official stops play, issues the warning for both non-egregious behavior and for being out of the box and any subsequent violation of either would draw a technical foul.

What my guys said they hope and believe will happen is the wording that comes out and is put in the casebook for this type of play is that the officials will allow the fast break to finish and then immediately stop play and issue the warning(s) similar to how a non-emergency injury or delayed technical foul during a fast break is handled.

They acknowledged that not every scenario can be written up but there needs to be some guidance for plays like that which are likely to occur. The both strongly agreed that the warning rule is a good one and puts the onus for behavior on coaches after the first warning has been issued. As one of them said, “they now have one get out of jail free card and know the risk if they do it again.” They said the NFHS believes bench decorum is out of control and needs to be addressed but that officials believe issuing technical fouls right away is too harsh. Now, officials can warn and then it is on the coaches to monitor and check their own behavior. On scenario that the NFHS wants stopped and they believe the warning will do it is the multiple walk backs to put coaches in the box. They believe it happens way too often and eventually officials just give up and let the coaches wander. They also believe the 28 foot box gives them more than enough room to move and coach and if they cannot stay in the box, there shall be a warning followed by technical foul.

Again, these were just two guys with knowledge of the situation and they were just sharing their thoughts so I am just sharing them here.

This is the rub IMO. And this is also why it is a non-issue to me. When you say we have 2 hand reporting and you act like we are doing it exactly the way the other levels do this, we are setting ourselves up for being disappointed. Because those that work Men's Basketball do not have the same way we report as those that work Women's basketball as an example or even the NBA. So now some got their "baby" but I would not be surprised if some aspects of this will be different. And we will still have people that will "Do it the college way" like they do with other things like stopping the clock on a violation or even stopping to report the foul in the actual reporting area.

Peace

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.

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.

This is just the trend that the NF is going with things like sideline warnings in football or restrictions to the dugout in baseball and softball. Nothing new here and I actually like this process. I have never liked the "stop sign" or what it does for many reasons. This is less confrontational IMO and lets everyone know what is going on as opposed to some position that can be looked at differently as if the official has a bug up their behind or has rabbit ears.

Peace

I just dealt with a baseball ejection from a school I assign.

I asked the question, "was a verbal warning given.....was a written warning with restriction given?" In the end, the ejection was easily warranted, but they did skip a step and, frankly, didn't know the rule that was just changed this year.

Those officials who like to go right to a technical foul or think a stop sign is an adequate warning (IMO it never was and was just fuel on the fire) are going to need to change the mindset unless you don't answer to an assigner or conference. You're going to need to be willing to blow the whistle, let everyone know it's a warning, have it written in the book. And quite frankly, I think there will be quite a few instances where the warning will be followed with a technical.

The one thing I would like to see is an explicit mention that arguing the warning is grounds for an immediate technical foul. I know that most officials and many coaches are smart enough to get that, but not all are.

Let's give credit where it's due -- this all started with NCAA baseball, trickled into NFHS baseball this season, and is expanding to other sports.

And I agree -- it's a positive. I had 3 technical fouls last season and every time the coaches were explicitly warned beforehand. But the only people that knew that were me, the coach, and anyone close enough to hear me.

This is better.

Well my point again is that the NF likes to be consistent across the board with some basic philosophies. Like how they deal with uniforms where each sport has a stance on what can or cannot be worn in some very specific situations. Not really concerned where it ultimately came from as many NF rules or positions come from other levels. Rarely does the NF invent something that was not done at the higher level first. Also NCAA Men's had a "warning" system at one time and got rid of that position. So I am not sure that was relevant to who started this, but since it is the case in other sports, it is the case across the board.

Peace

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! [emoji3] 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

+1

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good Change ...
 

Agree.

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.

Why would you think that?

Making the box bigger is not going to change coach behavior. The coaches who are idiots will still be idiots - the fact that he/she has 14 more feet to roam will just make it easier for everyone in the building to see him/her being an idiot.

The official warning will help a lot of coaches. Sometimes we get wound up because we see things going sideways. An official warning will let those of us who can control ourselves know it is time to exercise that control. And for those of us who are idiots...nothing will change that, so take care of business.

You are right, I am a little tired of having to worry about if a coach is in the box or not. And at least this gives them more room and being in the box is a lesser issue IMO. I hardly ever work a college game and worry about a coach being out of the box.

Peace

When they're out of the box in a college game, it's usually, "Holy ****, look at where HE is." Whack.

And NCAA-M and NCAA-W are recommending extending the coaching box to 38'

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.

Agree ...
 

Bingo.

Would you prefer this coaching box:

https://aarteeillusionsystems.files..../09/table8.jpg

Is it filled with water?

Coaches in every sport that I can think of are apart of the game and the decision making process. I really do not care either way. We have tools to take care of them if they get out of hand. We really need to get over it honestly.

Peace

As a part-time HS administrator, I've learned that the coaches are the ones that (we hope) stay through many classes of kids. Kids and their parents come and go -- it's the coach that provides continuity of the program.

For some reason, some officials think they should be marginalized / minimized -- I find that ludicrous.

Soundproof?

Nevadaref, probably
 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zs60CqBYnvg?rel=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Funny - I worked some 7th grade (boys and girls) tournament games over the weekend with a couple of officials from my group in the Bay Area.

We talked about the new rules but habits die hard. I was using one hand to report though I'll switch to two hand eventually. I still have some kids and adult league games I work so plenty of time to practice.

The new warning rule is interesting though I didn't apply it. I had a bang-bang play that I called a block and the coach went ballistic. She was yelling at me and stomping her feet. After I reported the foul I issued the technical. I assume that would be considered a major situation!

It's Gonna Happen, It's Gonna Happen ...
 

After which she asked, "Don't you have to warn me first?"

The less I have to worry about anything other than the behavior of the coach, the easier my job is. We've always had the tools to deal with misbehavior; now we have even more tools with the box expanding down to the end line.

Assigners and associations will all have varying expectations of infractions considered "major" or not. However, under the new rules, she's at the very least getting her warning, and if she protests after that (which is probable), she's getting the seatbelt.

IMO, if a coach continues to act up after the warning, (s)he wants to get whacked, so I'll oblige.

I don't mind giving a coach a free one under most circumstances. I'm not perfect and neither are they.

"Ballistic"? "Yelling at me"? "Stomping her feet"? In a 7th grade game?

This is one big problem that should never happen at this level. Coaches should be teaching that coaches coach. They should be teaching utmost respect for any official decision involving judgement. I could go on and on but it would be pointless I guess. AD's need to do a better job of hiring coaches, surely at these levels.

With the onset of two-handed reporting to the table, I'm looking for images of officials doing that. If anybody has any to share with me, please PM me or respond with a link to where I can access them.
Thanx....

Let's Go To The Videotape ... ...
 

Breaking news. This just in. The NFHS has released two hand reporting guidelines and has indicated that three point field goal attempts will also be signaled by two hands. When a player attempts a field goal from behind the three point arc, the nearest official will signal with two hands at head height, showing two fingers on one hand, and one finger on the other.