2017-18 NFHS Interpretations, Pt.2

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by IncorrectCall

NFHS should go with NCAA on this one..


Book warnings are for "coaching" outside of the coaching box.

All other warnings (quiet word, public hand, etc) should not come in the form of game stoppages or book warnings.

If it's not bad, diffuse it - if it's bad, whack.

Except we all have seen plenty of NCAA-M games where this is ignored (including the few that I work); I routinely see men's college officials put warnings in the book for behavior issues. What you said might be the rule, but it's seldom applied like that. Heck, I don't think I've ever seen a coach get a warning for coaching outside the box.

Heck, even in high school games before this rule change there were plenty of officials that would put these types of warnings in the book.

[IncorrectCall]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Except we all have seen plenty of NCAA-M games where this is ignored (including the few that I work); I routinely see men's college officials put warnings in the book for behavior issues. What you said might be the rule, but it's seldom applied like that. Heck, I don't think I've ever seen a coach get a warning for coaching outside the box.

Heck, even in high school games before this rule change there were plenty of officials that would put these types of warnings in the book.

Agreed - it is a major POE this year NOT to do that in NCAA - M. J.D. talked on it for what seemed like 30 minutes.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Except we all have seen plenty of NCAA-M games where this is ignored (including the few that I work); I routinely see men's college officials put warnings in the book for behavior issues. What you said might be the rule, but it's seldom applied like that. Heck, I don't think I've ever seen a coach get a warning for coaching outside the box.

Heck, even in high school games before this rule change there were plenty of officials that would put these types of warnings in the book.

NCAA Men's officials are being told to issue T's after giving warnings this season, especially now that the coaches have a 38' box to wander.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

NCAA Men's officials are being told to issue T's after giving warnings this season, especially now that the coaches have a 38' box to wander.

Are you speaking to giving warnings for coaching outside of the box? In which case the following T would be a Class B

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Are you speaking to giving warnings for coaching outside of the box? In which case the following T would be a Class B

Yes. And they also want warnings in the book for bad behavior, with subsequent T's.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes. And they also want warnings in the book for bad behavior, with subsequent T's.

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Yes those are two different types of warnings. Although if a coach has a prior coaching box violation perhaps consider skipping the warning for behavior and going straight to T.

[Smitty]

It's a slippery slope to start giving out multiple warnings. It's like double daring them. I like the way we are doing it. One and only one warning to the head coach only.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

4-48 NEW: Warning for Coach/Team Conduct
A warning to a coach/team for misconduct is an administrative procedure by an official, which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the Head Coach:
Art. 1 . . . For conduct, such as that described in rule 10-5-1a,b,d,e,f; 10-5-2; 10-5-4 the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.
Art. 2 . . . For the first violation of rule 10-6-1, the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

Rationale: Stopping play and making sure that the bench and the coach know that an official warning has been given, sends a clear message to everyone in the gym and impacts the behavior of the coach, and in some cases the behavior of the opposing coach. This change in behavior creates a better atmosphere and many times avoids the need to administer a technical foul

New rule for officials to issue a warning (4-48-1 and 2): Officials may now issue a warning to the coach or the team bench. These warnings can be for conduct that is described in 10-5 or 10-6. If the offense is deemed to be major, the official may assess a technical foul in either situation. A warning is not required prior to assessing a technical foul. These warnings will be recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.

Two separate warnings for nonmajor (conduct and coaching box) offenses?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Actually, just found out last night through a conference clinic that we are not allowed to give a book warning for bad behavior, just coaching box infractions, so I stand corrected on that statement.