NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[Rich]

We've been playing 18-minute halves for 2 years now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We've been playing 18-minute halves for 2 years now.

Well that seems to be the more likely move from the NF.

Peace

[walt]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walt

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.

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

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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.

[SC Official]

http://bit.ly/2q7Goy6

It is time! Rejoice!

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[SC Official]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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



Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

[SC Official]

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

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

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?

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Mbilica

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'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.