NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[Rich]

Yes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Define "shall" in some other way.

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

[Rich]

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

[crosscountry55]

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.

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.
.

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

The dress is blue and black!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

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.

[HokiePaul]

"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.

[SC Official]

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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?

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... official warning ... 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.

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

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[SC Official]

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?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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.