NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, we have mechanics because "the best in the world" use them so that is great logic for a level that has totally different rules and philosophies on all kinds of things.

Peace

I'm not sure if you could tell or not, but I was agreeing with you and Rich, not disagreeing. There are NBA mechanics I prefer to NFHS, but we shouldn't implement them in high school just for the sake of being like the NBA.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm not sure if you could tell or not, but I was agreeing with you and Rich, not disagreeing. There are NBA mechanics I prefer to NFHS, but we shouldn't implement them in high school just for the sake of being like the NBA.

I was not commenting on whether you agreed with me or not. I think the "best in the world" argument runs hollow to me and why I commented.

I was not talking about things like two-handed reporting or walking and talking, I am talking about primary coverages and philosophy for the most part the NBA holds. I think the NBA and even NCAA official is much more trained and competent to do some things. And the reality is that the NCAA has different rules which also would not easily apply to their level based on the NBA positions. At the high school level we have people that have never officiated before, that will officiate a game in the coming year. Or we have people that can hardly put two things together at the same time. Or better yet get certain officials to stop ball watching. Those are things that the NBA likely does not have to worry about in their systems. That was my point.

Peace

[The_Rookie]

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups

This is the best day of my life!

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This is the best day of my life!

/\ /\ /\ This is why it's so easy to go Christmas shopping for you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups

I don't care whether reporting is done with one or two hands. Just be the same for everyone.
Boo, hiss on recording a warning in the book for behavior. That behavior should be a T. Officials are just afraid to make that call.

Not looking forward to seeing what the NFHS screwed up with their editorial changes.

Save

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't care whether reporting is done with one or two hands. Just be the same for everyone.
Boo, hiss on recording a warning in the book for behavior. That behavior should be a T. Officials are just afraid to make that call.

Not looking forward to seeing what the NFHS screwed up with their editorial changes.

Save

It won't change much for me. If I give a warning, it will simply be put in the book if this change is true. When I whack the coach later, it will simply be, "You were warned. It's in the book."

Anyone who whacks at the first unsportsmanlike behavior will have a short career. There are exceptions, but like it or not, warnings are part of the game that are here to stay. And the NFHS has been moving in that direction.....in baseball it's actually verbal warning, written warning, restriction, ejection for all but major unsportsmanlike acts.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups

Someone with supposed "inside information" made a similar comment last year. The pot was stirred, we all held our breath, and then nothing happened.

So I'll believe it when I see it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups

If the Officials Manual gives us 2-handed reporting, I hope they have the presence of mind to revise 2-9-1 to match.

And while they're at it, maybe get rid of that "Back to the Future" RULING in 9.12.

Then maybe also put the word "legally" back into 4-42-5a because omitting it doesn't make any difference unless they revise 6-4-5 and 6.4.5 to give us something totally different than what we're accustomed to.

And since clean ups is the topic of the day, why not correct all of the old references to 20 seconds in the rules book and casebook that last year changed to 15 seconds.

And why not mention this: please don't give us any POE's without an associated rule change.

Or should I just turn to face the strain and be satisfied with less than correct?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

And why not mention this: please don't give us any POE's without an associated rule change.

POE's usually have rules behind them already that people are not calling correctly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

POE's usually have rules behind them already that people are not calling correctly.

I do not think POEs have much to do with what is called. I think they are used to emphasize what the actual rule is and is misunderstood. Coaches and players often think that certain things are legal that are not. The rulebook is for everyone, not just the officials. And we already know that coaches often contest things that we call that are actual rules we have addressed.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

POE's usually have rules behind them already that people are not calling correctly.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think POEs have much to do with what is called. I think they are used to emphasize what the actual rule is and is misunderstood.

Above the shoulders contact Point of Emphasis should be in the rulebook. Incidental contact? Common foul? Intentional foul? Flagrant foul?

2012-13 POE: Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.
a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

The specificity of the POE doesn't' show up in the rulebook.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

please don't give us any POE's without an associated rule change.

Amen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... put the word "legally" back into 4-42-5a ...

If you're talking about the throwin kick, then I agree that the word illegal made it easier for me to understand and officiate the play. Without the word illegal it's difficult for me to understand why the throwin didn't end. I now have trouble remembering to leave the arrow alone after the new throwin. In the olden days, I do remember saying to a questioning coach, "We don't change the arrow because the kick illegally ended the throwin". That wording doesn't apply any more (but the outcome is the same).

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to
where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession
throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and
therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession
throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession
throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered.
When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking
violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.