NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[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.

[SC Official]

Rich made a good point about arguing the warning.

Walt, to confirm, a misconduct warning will be the entire bench's one warning, regardless of whether the offender is the head coach, an assistant, sub, etc., correct?

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

[walt]

Everyone's line of tolerance is different and will always be different. However, once the warning is issued, the line is brightly drawn. A coach going to the endline to tell an official what he/she thinks of a particular call(s) could, and under this rule, probably should result in a warning at a minimum. The warning is a very effective tool if used properly. I can see a lot of officials using it because it shifts the burden for behavior back to the coach. If he/she is not smart enough to abide by it, that is on them, not us.

According to my guys, yes, a warning for one (assistant, bench player, etc) is a warning for all. However, comments from the bench can warrant a T without warning as can comments from a head coach. Each of us will have to determine and pre-game what we will warn for and what we will consider egregious.

[JRutledge]

I equate this with the "Stop sign" that everyone loves to tell others how great and universal it is when used properly.

So why would we agree on the usage of this tool?

Peace

Originally Posted by SC Official

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

True! Plus if a head coach is acting up, I usually find that their assistants are as well. So I can slap a warning on the assistant and hopefully the head coach will get the picture. Boom.

[BryanV21]

I believe that if an official manages the game well, the point about coaches getting mad that they were t'd up before being warned will not be a problem. I mean, how often will a coach go from "zero to 60" and warrant a tech before a warning, anyway?

In ten years (yes, compared to many of you I'm still a kid) I don't think I've ever t'd up a coach before some type of unofficial warning. Each time I can tell a coach he was warned before getting whacked. The official warning, like has been stated over and over, just lets everyone know of the warning so when the coach acts up again (or whatever) it's not a surprise to anyone in the gym, watching on tv, or listening on the radio.

BTW, I don't care if I'm told to report fouls with one hand or two.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tnolan

...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.

That will be a perfect opportunity to practice putting warnings in the book.

[walt]

Originally Posted by raymond

that will be a perfect opportunity to practice putting warnings in the book.

+1

[CJP]

Originally Posted by 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.

The inconsistency between technical fouls for officials is currently a problem and something needs to be done so I like the new rule change. Coaches can read officials and know how far to push. Officials who get pushed and never issue the technical have a new tool at their disposal. Hopefully this will encourage those guys who are a little timid to get things under control. I personally wish more technical fouls for unsportsmanlike behavior are called. At the minimum, this is a wake up call to coaches that they need to clean up their act.