NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Here's hoping that the manual or rule book will specific the proper signaling.

[walt]

Last night I had dinner with two guys, one is the little birdy who told me these changes were coming and the other is a friend of his who is on the rules committee. I’ll start with the two handed reporting. They agreed the press release is poorly written. This is what it means. Last season, some states were asked to informally survey table personnel and ask them about two handed versus one handed reporting of the fouler number. My state was one of them. Most responses were not surprisingly, “Huh?” or “I don’t really care” or “Whatever they want to do.” However, there was a clear preference for two handed reporting, hence the rule change. They put it in the RULE so as to standardize and mandate two handed reporting across the country for games played under NFHS rules. So, what it means is that an official shall report the fouler’s number using both hands at the same time with the right hand signify the first number and the second signifying the second number so they can easily seen and read by the scorer. They also want officials to stop saying “Three” “Four” instead of “Thirty-Four” and they believe this will accomplish that.

They said more discussion occurred related to warnings to the coaches. There are two possible and separate warnings. The first is for being completely out of the box (both feet out) whether on purpose or inadvertently and the second is for non-egregious behavior. The way it is currently written, the NFHS wants the play stopped IMMEDIATELY upon observation and the warning issued and recorded in the book with the accompanying reason regardless of when and what is happening in the game at the time. They guys last night believe this will be tweaked somewhat and gave this scenario as to why. Both warnings can be issued separately or possibly for the same action.

Team A steals the ball and is transitioning to a fast break. The Coach of Team B sees this and steps completely out of the box to stop the play and draw the warning. This is exactly how it is supposed to be officiated given the current wording. Of course we all know, if that happens, we may end up having to address egregious behavior from the Coach of Team A!!!

According to my guys, When this was raised during the NFHS meetings, leadership acknowledged that there are officials who will say “I didn’t stop the play because I DIDN’T SEE the coach out of the box because I was watching the play” even though in reality, they simply chose to ignore the Coach of Team B’s action because they didn’t want to take away the fast break. To that the NFHS leadership’s response was those officials have chosen to manipulate the game and chose to IGNORE a rule which goes against how the game is supposed to be officiated and is unfair to the other team because it allows illegal behavior to go unpunished. The also said that the Team B is risking two possible outcomes. The first is an official could deem his/her action as egregious and unsporting and assess a technical foul instead of a warning or, the official stops play, issues the warning for both non-egregious behavior and for being out of the box and any subsequent violation of either would draw a technical foul.

What my guys said they hope and believe will happen is the wording that comes out and is put in the casebook for this type of play is that the officials will allow the fast break to finish and then immediately stop play and issue the warning(s) similar to how a non-emergency injury or delayed technical foul during a fast break is handled.

They acknowledged that not every scenario can be written up but there needs to be some guidance for plays like that which are likely to occur. The both strongly agreed that the warning rule is a good one and puts the onus for behavior on coaches after the first warning has been issued. As one of them said, “they now have one get out of jail free card and know the risk if they do it again.” They said the NFHS believes bench decorum is out of control and needs to be addressed but that officials believe issuing technical fouls right away is too harsh. Now, officials can warn and then it is on the coaches to monitor and check their own behavior. On scenario that the NFHS wants stopped and they believe the warning will do it is the multiple walk backs to put coaches in the box. They believe it happens way too often and eventually officials just give up and let the coaches wander. They also believe the 28 foot box gives them more than enough room to move and coach and if they cannot stay in the box, there shall be a warning followed by technical foul.

Again, these were just two guys with knowledge of the situation and they were just sharing their thoughts so I am just sharing them here.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by walt

Last night I had dinner with two guys, one is the little birdy who told me these changes were coming and the other is a friend of his who is on the rules committee. I’ll start with the two handed reporting. They agreed the press release is poorly written. This is what it means. Last season, some states were asked to informally survey table personnel and ask them about two handed versus one handed reporting of the fouler number. My state was one of them. Most responses were not surprisingly, “Huh?” or “I don’t really care” or “Whatever they want to do.” However, there was a clear preference for two handed reporting, hence the rule change. They put it in the RULE so as to standardize and mandate two handed reporting across the country for games played under NFHS rules. So, what it means is that an official shall report the fouler’s number using both hands at the same time with the right hand signify the first number and the second signifying the second number so they can easily seen and read by the scorer. They also want officials to stop saying “Three” “Four” instead of “Thirty-Four” and they believe this will accomplish that.

They said more discussion occurred related to warnings to the coaches. There are two possible and separate warnings. The first is for being completely out of the box (both feet out) whether on purpose or inadvertently and the second is for non-egregious behavior. The way it is currently written, the NFHS wants the play stopped IMMEDIATELY upon observation and the warning issued and recorded in the book with the accompanying reason regardless of when and what is happening in the game at the time. They guys last night believe this will be tweaked somewhat and gave this scenario as to why. Both warnings can be issued separately or possibly for the same action.

Team A steals the ball and is transitioning to a fast break. The Coach of Team B sees this and steps completely out of the box to stop the play and draw the warning. This is exactly how it is supposed to be officiated given the current wording. Of course we all know, if that happens, we may end up having to address egregious behavior from the Coach of Team A!!!

According to my guys, When this was raised during the NFHS meetings, leadership acknowledged that there are officials who will say “I didn’t stop the play because I DIDN’T SEE the coach out of the box because I was watching the play” even though in reality, they simply chose to ignore the Coach of Team B’s action because they didn’t want to take away the fast break. To that the NFHS leadership’s response was those officials have chosen to manipulate the game and chose to IGNORE a rule which goes against how the game is supposed to be officiated and is unfair to the other team because it allows illegal behavior to go unpunished. The also said that the Team B is risking two possible outcomes. The first is an official could deem his/her action as egregious and unsporting and assess a technical foul instead of a warning or, the official stops play, issues the warning for both non-egregious behavior and for being out of the box and any subsequent violation of either would draw a technical foul.

What my guys said they hope and believe will happen is the wording that comes out and is put in the casebook for this type of play is that the officials will allow the fast break to finish and then immediately stop play and issue the warning(s) similar to how a non-emergency injury or delayed technical foul during a fast break is handled.

They acknowledged that not every scenario can be written up but there needs to be some guidance for plays like that which are likely to occur. The both strongly agreed that the warning rule is a good one and puts the onus for behavior on coaches after the first warning has been issued. As one of them said, “they now have one get out of jail free card and know the risk if they do it again.” They said the NFHS believes bench decorum is out of control and needs to be addressed but that officials believe issuing technical fouls right away is too harsh. Now, officials can warn and then it is on the coaches to monitor and check their own behavior. On scenario that the NFHS wants stopped and they believe the warning will do it is the multiple walk backs to put coaches in the box. They believe it happens way too often and eventually officials just give up and let the coaches wander. They also believe the 28 foot box gives them more than enough room to move and coach and if they cannot stay in the box, there shall be a warning followed by technical foul.

Again, these were just two guys with knowledge of the situation and they were just sharing their thoughts so I am just sharing them here.

Thank you.

This is how I see it, too. It's a positive.

Coach acts up. Tweet. Warning. EVERYONE sees it. Now when the coach acts up again and I whack him (and I will), all I have to say is, "you were warned, it's in the book." And then I can shrug and walk away.

[walt]

That is what I was told they want. The wrote in the warning option because they believe A LOT more officials will be amenable to warn as opposed to going right to the technical foul. They told me that rule change was unanimously approved because it puts the onus directly on the coach after a warning and gives the crew exactly what you said, "Coach, you were warned." They want the type of warning recorded so the coach cannot say "But I wasn't warned for that!" They also give the option for both warnings to be issued at the same time for a single act. I like it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walt

That is what I was told they want. The wrote in the warning option because they believe A LOT more officials will be amenable to warn as opposed to going right to the technical foul. They told me that rule change was unanimously approved because it puts the onus directly on the coach after a warning and gives the crew exactly what you said, "Coach, you were warned." They want the type of warning recorded so the coach cannot say "But I wasn't warned for that!" They also give the option for both warnings to be issued at the same time for a single act. I like it.

This is just the trend that the NF is going with things like sideline warnings in football or restrictions to the dugout in baseball and softball. Nothing new here and I actually like this process. I have never liked the "stop sign" or what it does for many reasons. This is less confrontational IMO and lets everyone know what is going on as opposed to some position that can be looked at differently as if the official has a bug up their behind or has rabbit ears.

Peace

[Rich]

I just dealt with a baseball ejection from a school I assign.

I asked the question, "was a verbal warning given.....was a written warning with restriction given?" In the end, the ejection was easily warranted, but they did skip a step and, frankly, didn't know the rule that was just changed this year.

Those officials who like to go right to a technical foul or think a stop sign is an adequate warning (IMO it never was and was just fuel on the fire) are going to need to change the mindset unless you don't answer to an assigner or conference. You're going to need to be willing to blow the whistle, let everyone know it's a warning, have it written in the book. And quite frankly, I think there will be quite a few instances where the warning will be followed with a technical.

The one thing I would like to see is an explicit mention that arguing the warning is grounds for an immediate technical foul. I know that most officials and many coaches are smart enough to get that, but not all are.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is just the trend that the NF is going with things like sideline warnings in football or restrictions to the dugout in baseball and softball. Nothing new here and I actually like this process. I have never liked the "stop sign" or what it does for many reasons. This is less confrontational IMO and lets everyone know what is going on as opposed to some position that can be looked at differently as if the official has a bug up their behind or has rabbit ears.

Peace

Let's give credit where it's due -- this all started with NCAA baseball, trickled into NFHS baseball this season, and is expanding to other sports.

And I agree -- it's a positive. I had 3 technical fouls last season and every time the coaches were explicitly warned beforehand. But the only people that knew that were me, the coach, and anyone close enough to hear me.

This is better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Let's give credit where it's due -- this all started with NCAA baseball, trickled into NFHS baseball this season, and is expanding to other sports.

And I agree -- it's a positive. I had 3 technical fouls last season and every time the coaches were explicitly warned beforehand. But the only people that knew that were me, the coach, and anyone close enough to hear me.

This is better.

Well my point again is that the NF likes to be consistent across the board with some basic philosophies. Like how they deal with uniforms where each sport has a stance on what can or cannot be worn in some very specific situations. Not really concerned where it ultimately came from as many NF rules or positions come from other levels. Rarely does the NF invent something that was not done at the higher level first. Also NCAA Men's had a "warning" system at one time and got rid of that position. So I am not sure that was relevant to who started this, but since it is the case in other sports, it is the case across the board.

Peace

Originally Posted by walt

That is what I was told they want. The wrote in the warning option because they believe A LOT more officials will be amenable to warn as opposed to going right to the technical foul. They told me that rule change was unanimously approved because it puts the onus directly on the coach after a warning and gives the crew exactly what you said, "Coach, you were warned." They want the type of warning recorded so the coach cannot say "But I wasn't warned for that!" They also give the option for both warnings to be issued at the same time for a single act. I like it.

Unfortunately when a coach's behavior warrants skipping the warning and going straight to the tech they will have it in their head that they should have been officially warned first.

[LRZ]

There may be some disagreement about what offenses are "major," thus meriting immediate Ts. If, because of uncertainty about where to draw the line between min or and major offenses, referees feel compelled to warn officially first, coaches will get an additional bite of the apple. Although there may well be a big HTBT contextual element, some further guidance may be necessary, or, at least, helpful.

[tnolan]

while some think this is another tool for officials to use, i think it just further complicates an already convoluted process by adding an unnecessary layer. all officials have different thresholds and tolerances already for what behavior constitutes for a technical, and now that will just carry down to what is and what isn't considered behavior warranting a misconduct warning. and being such a grey area of instances, it's near impossible for all officials (even in the same chapter) to get on the same page. while one night a coach could be warned, another night he/she could be T'd for the same instance. and even 2 separate coaches in the same game. I'm not saying that it can't be used properly, but fear the lack of consistency will result in more issues, instead of less as proposed.
i understand the logic behind the addition, especially coming from some other sports where it works...but basketball is not even close to any other sport in terms of coach/referee relationship and a million other things as well...and i just believe it will ultimately give coaches a longer leash. IMO we've just added another tool to their belt, not ours. TWO actually! extending the box to the end line WILL result in the opportunity to give the Lead official an earful, more often than it will increase the coaches ability to coach their team.

[walt]

That is why pre-gaming where the lines are and what each member of the crew defines as egregious is even more critical. The crew also needs to understand that once a warning has been issued, there are no more warnings for that offense. In the case of the warning for being out of the box and saying/acting something in non-egregious sense, and having both warnings issued at the same time, no more warnings period from anyone on the crew.

[walt]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Unfortunately when a coach's behavior warrants skipping the warning and going straight to the tech they will have it in their head that they should have been officially warned first.

And the more they argue that point, the closer they may get to the locker room!

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

Thank you.



This is how I see it, too. It's a positive.



Coach acts up. Tweet. Warning. EVERYONE sees it. Now when the coach acts up again and I whack him (and I will), all I have to say is, "you were warned, it's in the book." And then I can shrug and walk away.

Concur with walt and Rich. Thanks for the background info, walt! Very well written and described.

The other day I opined that these were the best rules changes in at least five years. Overnight, it dawned on me that (uniforms notwithstanding) they all had to do with officiating tools and mechanics. No wonder I like them so much! But nationwide, sportsmanship in basketball is at critical mass right now, as surveys, observations and this forum have pointed out. So the committee needed to focus on sportsmanship and that's exactly what they did. I think this is why I'm very proud of the outcome this year; it broadens our tool belts as officials, which in turn hopefully restores decency to behavior in high school basketball. This, in turn, may improve the ability of states to attract and retain new officials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Here's hoping that the manual or rule book will specific the proper signaling.

This is the rub IMO. And this is also why it is a non-issue to me. When you say we have 2 hand reporting and you act like we are doing it exactly the way the other levels do this, we are setting ourselves up for being disappointed. Because those that work Men's Basketball do not have the same way we report as those that work Women's basketball as an example or even the NBA. So now some got their "baby" but I would not be surprised if some aspects of this will be different. And we will still have people that will "Do it the college way" like they do with other things like stopping the clock on a violation or even stopping to report the foul in the actual reporting area.

Peace