NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Agreed. I'd get rid of the seatbelt rule, too, if it was up to me. But this would be a start.

Yup. Me too.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Also agree. The less we have to police the specific location of the coach, the better.

That said, I still see a few that go too far the other way and get in front of the scorer's table. I've even had a scorer mention to me that they couldn't clearly see the game because the coach was blocking her view when we were at the far end of the court.

If indeed the box is being expanded, I wouldn't be surprised to see more directives to "strictly" enforce the boundaries of the box since the coaches are being given an extra 14 feet. Of course, that doesn't necessarily solve the problem you mentioned.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If indeed the box is being expanded, I wouldn't be surprised to see more directives to "strictly" enforce the boundaries of the box since the coaches are being given an extra 14 feet. Of course, that doesn't necessarily solve the problem you mentioned.

With a 28 foot box, there's one line I would enforce closely -- the end line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Having a 28-foot box would make me quite happy. Let the coach go where he wants to coach as long as he's behaving himself.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I still see a few that go too far the other way and get in front of the scorer's table. I've even had a scorer mention to me that they couldn't clearly see the game because the coach was blocking her view when we were at the far end of the court.

Agree, and agree again.

[JRutledge]

Well I had an opportunity to see JD Collins speak at a camp this weekend.

It appears that the NCAA Men's side is to going to quarters this year for sure. They also are not going to resetting fouls after 5 this year as well. The reason these things need to be investigated more and it appears coaches like to coach to the possibility of having 1 and 1 free throws. It may change in the future, but not something they will change without more data.

So if the NF changes this, they will not have the support of the most high profile level college at this time. And yes that sometimes matters if you are going to take on rules from other levels.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I had an opportunity to see JD Collins speak at a camp this weekend.

It appears that the NCAA Men's side is to going to quarters this year for sure. They also are not going to resetting fouls after 5 this year as well. The reason these things need to be investigated more and it appears coaches like to coach to the possibility of having 1 and 1 free throws. It may change in the future, but not something they will change without more data.

So if the NF changes this, they will not have the support of the most high profile level college at this time. And yes that sometimes matters if you are going to take on rules from other levels.

Peace

The women's side has done this, though. No reason why the NFHS wouldn't side with the women's rules over the men's rules *if* there was to be a change.

Wonder if we'll go back to quarters now in WI. The coaches seem to like halves, but now we'll be different than every other level.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

The women's side has done this, though. No reason why the NFHS wouldn't side with the women's rules over the men's rules *if* there was to be a change.

Well if that is the case, it never seems to change a rule from college unless the Men's side accepts or changes the rule in their game. Even mechanics are often not changed unless the Men's side in general makes the change. Again my point is that the Men's side are not changing some things that people here wanted to change. I think that will likely mean that those changes will not come as quickly as some think. We already know that the NCAA Men's side does not accept the NBA way of things on many levels. And even JD Collins said, "We are not the NBA." He went on to day, "They have 64 officials on their staff, we have 850 regular D1 officials at our level." Heck my state has 5000 basketball officials that range in all years of experience as well and that is just one state. So when we have rules changes, it has to benefit everyone, not just a relatively smaller number of schools. Heck my state even has over double the amount of schools the NCAA D1 level has to play, which many of the rules use as their standard of operation.

Originally Posted by Rich

Wonder if we'll go back to quarters now in WI. The coaches seem to like halves, but now we'll be different than every other level.

I hope we go to halves. I think the game flows better. Heck after working several AAU games with 16 minute halves, I would rather that be the standard anyway. Only one last second shot possibility and the game just flows and runs smoother IMO. Heck you can even extend the game a minute or two a half as well and that would be better IMO.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... with 16 minute halves ... Only one last second shot possibility

Great point. Two instead of four. I never thought of that.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

[SC Official]

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