2017-18 NFHS Interpretations, Pt.2
 

SITUATION 8: A1, while dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the midcourt line, has the ball strike the midcourt line and as the ball comes up from the dribble, A1 touches the ball and continues to dribble. RULING: Backcourt violation. A1 may not be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt, before it went to the backcourt. (9-9-1)

SITUATION 9: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball to A2, who had been standing in the free-throw lane since A1 had the ball at his/her disposal. RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the three-second rule specifically requires that a team be in control in its frontcourt for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the frontcourt. (4-35-2, 9-7)

SITUATION 10: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her backcourt. The administering official reaches a four-second count when A1 passes the ball onto the court. A1’s pass to A2, who is also in Team A’s backcourt, takes several bounces and six seconds before A2 picks up and controls the ball. RULING: Legal. Even though a team is now in control during a throw-in, the 10-second rule specifically requires that a player/team be in continuous control in its backcourt for 10 seconds for a violation to occur. Technically speaking, the thrower-in is out of bounds and not located in the backcourt. (4-35-2, 9-8)

SITUATION 11: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the free-throw line, is high, bounces several times and goes into Team A’s backcourt
untouched. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player control and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball in the backcourt and the backcourt count starts as soon as A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2, 9-9)

SITUATION 12: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player control and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2, 9-9)

SITUATION 13: The head coach of Team A is upset that the foul count against his team is 7 to 2. He voices his opinion in an unsporting manner to the contest official. RULING: The official should stop play if it is not a break situation with a potential scoring opportunity and give the coach an official warning by notifying the scorekeeper and then letting the coach know that he has been warned. The scorekeeper should make note of the warning in the scorebook. This situation does not have to be given a warning; the coach could be issued a technical immediately. (4-48)

SITUATION 14: During a live ball, the assistant coach is off the bench and out of the coaching box giving instructions to a player on the court. RULING: The official should rule a technical on the assistant coach for being off the bench and out of the coaching box. (4-48)

SITUATION 15: During the second quarter, the head coach is off the bench expressing his disapproval of several calls made. As the team brings the ball down the floor into the frontcourt, the trail official stops play to issue a warning. RULING: The official is correct in issuing a warning to the coach for the complaints. The scorekeeper is notified, as well as the coach, of the warning. Another warning cannot be given. (4-48)

SITUATION 16: During the warm-up period, the referee notices on the back of Team B’s jersey the letters (a) PHHS and (b) P+E+T. RULING: Legal in (a) as the letters on the jersey represent the official name of the school; illegal in (b) as the letters do not represent the name of the school, which makes the jersey illegal. The head coach shall be charged with a direct technical foul and the game will begin with the opponents shooting two free throws and receiving the ball for a division line throw-in. The head coach will lose coaching-box privileges. (3-4-4, 10-6-4)

SITUATION 17: Team A is wearing a jersey with the school name above the number on the front and the player name in the shoulder area across the back. RULING: Legal. It is permissible to place the names in these locations. (3-4-4)

Glad to see this got cleaned up.

Wasn't there a substantially similar case already in the book?

Iowa has taken this a step farther. Warnings issued during play will be recorded in the book during the next stoppage in play. Officials will not stop play just for a warning.

Until I read this, I thought I had this in perspective. I have often addressed a HC about an AC's actions, including varying degrees of the above offense.

This interp makes it appear this is a Major offense of 10-5-2 and/or 10/5/4, since those are "warnable" offenses. Do you think it is the "out of the coaching box" that makes this a T?

Assistant coaches don't get warnings.

NFHS says they do
 

According to 10-5-1a,b,d,e,f,2&4, officials shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major. Guess I need to step up my game. :)

The situation you referenced was specifically about what the assistant coach was doing, and the new rule specifically says that assistant coaches do not get the courtesy of a warning. So if the assistant coach is misbehaving, and you need to punish him for it, the new official warning is not an option.

Is that derived from the interp or is it written somewhere that I missed?

I stand corrected - apparently based on some of the situations from the handout they are also allowing warnings for bench personnel. That's cute. Here in Texas we only give official warnings to head coaches. Assistant coaches and other bench personnel don't get afforded that courtesy. Sorry for the confusion.

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.

This is the rule because it works so well in a couple of other NF sports like football, where we have a sideline warning that results in no penalty. It puts the coach on notice and all coaches on notice and then we do not have to give any other penalty in the end because we made it known they had a warning. Works very well in football.

Peace

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Ahh the good ol coaching box issue. At the HS level I don't expect much change. I have always enforced and walked coaches back a couple times and then T'd.

My one JV game a year last year (this is why I hate working these games) had a coach at the table "coaching" his kids. I walk him back. We then have FT's and he's in the same spot. I go over and walk him back and tell him enough is enough. I turn to walk back and tell my partner that he's been warned about the box. My partner says to me, no joke, "What are you going to do he's back out.." Sure enough he is back at midcourt by the table. I T him.

At half time my partner said to me that it's a JV game and I should have let him go. I told him that's an unacceptable approach to the job and he should apply the rules. Especially after I warned the coach and told him I warned him.

Had the same partner who bounced the ball to a kid in a varsity game a couple weeks later for a FT and the kid was 2 feet outside the semi circle behind the FT line. I call a violation and he after the game said that I shouldn't have made that call. I told him he shouldn't have bounced the kid the ball in that position and it was lazy mechanics. I think he rated me poorly on both games (which is another pet peeve - officials rating officials).

We've been instructed that after the first warning, next is a T. Not to have 2 warnings

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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?

According to the NFHS Preseason Guide, it is improper to warn a coach more than once, even if the infractions are different.

Play 3: Team A's head coach is outside of the coaching box and is coaching his or her team. An official stops play to have the scorer record the warning in the scorebook and then notifies team A's head coach that he or she has been warned for being outside the coaching box. Later in the game team A's head coach, while within the coaching box, is demonstratively waving his or her hands at an official in disgust over a foul ruling. An official stops play and goes through the process to have a warning recorded.
Ruling 3: The official was correct to rule a warning to the coach for being outside of the coaching box. It also is acceptable to work through the same preventive officiating practices to remind the coach to remain within the coaching box as done in prior years. Repeated or constant attempts to keep a coach within a coaching box is not acceptable. It is not correct to rule a warning later to the same coach who was already warned. Once another or different rule is broken, a technical foul must be ruled. Further, a coach demonstratively waving his or her hands is a major violation of the rule and is a direct technical foul regardless of a prior warning.

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.

Why a violation? Shouldn't the penalty be a little more severe?

Isn't POI to place ball on FT line and then call violation when the shooter enters or better yet.... delay of game?

That is the correct ruling. It is simply a violation by the free throw shooter. Same violation as if the shooting team delays coming back from a time-out and the ball is placed on the free throw line. As soon as the shooter steps into the semi-circle, it's a violation.

Good catch. NFHS already addressed it. Thanks.

With this in mind, I think my tendency will be to save my warning for conduct stuff, because non-egregious box issues can be handled with preventive officiating just as the interp above suggests.

Definitely worth including in the pre-game with the crew. I don't think it would behoove us to have three different philosophies out there when it comes to warnings.

10.4.5c
10:Fouls and Penalties
4:Player Technical
5: A player shall not:
Delay the game by acts such as:

c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

The play described IS NOT a Resumption of Play. Thus 10.4.5c should be the ruling. It is a violation if A1 has disposal of the ball inside the Free Throw Circle, THEN steps over any line

Young'uns Can Google Larry Bird ...
 

Larry Bird used to do this all the time. It was part of his free throw routine, plus he liked being a wise ass.

How did you deduce that?


Had the same partner who bounced the ball to a kid in a varsity game a couple weeks later for a FT and the kid was 2 feet outside the semi circle behind the FT line. I call a violation and he after the game said that I shouldn't have made that call. I told him he shouldn't have bounced the kid the ball in that position and it was lazy mechanics. I think he rated me poorly on both games (which is another pet peeve - officials rating officials).

Peer Ratings ...
 

We now supplement ratings by trained observers with peer ratings. I hate rating my varsity partner, which is now the only (and junior varsity officials rating their junior varsity partners) peer rating that we do. I've got better things to observe during a game than my partner.

We used to allow junior varsity officials to rate varsity officials, which I also hated, and was glad to see go by the wayside.

But we threw out the baby with the bathwater when we stopped having varsity officials rate junior varsity officials. In my opinion that (varsity officials rate junior varsity officials) was the only worth while peer rating.

The Palmetto State ...
 

Nice citation SC Official. Thanks.

There's a case play that says the below regarding this violation and leaving or entering the semicircle is a violation.

RULING: Violation. After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the free thrower, he/she is not permitted to leave or enter the free-throw semicircle without violating, until restrictions have ended. (9-1-3e Penalty 1)

You're both right that the other was wrong.

This is not the purpose of the rule, I am disappointed you called this.

+1

why should the player be punished for the referee's mistake?

I get the logic here, but aren't players/teams "punished" for referees mistakes in many other scenarios? Wouldn't this logic then apply to any referee mistake being "correctable"?

I see your point.

It looks like you are referring to Case Book play 9.1.3 SITUATION I:

The official administering a free throw awarded to A1 places the ball at his/her disposal. A1, who is inside the free-throw semicircle leaves the semicircle to confer with a teammate.

RULING: Violation. After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the free thrower, he/she is not permitted to leave or enter the free-throw semicircle without violating, until restrictions have ended. (9-1-3e PENALTY 1)


Nothing about Shooter A1 entering the Free throw area after the ball is at his/Her disposal. Go to 10.4.5c

That is correct and can occur after a timeout if a team delays returning to the floor. You put the ball down on the FT line (never done it) and start the 10 count. The only way for the shooting team to avoid a violation on the FT is to call another timeout.