NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.