Survey Says ...
 

NFHS Rules Survey

Were the following rule changes satisfactory?

1. Enlarging the coaching box from 14 feet to 28 feet. The coaching box shall be outlined outside the court on which the scorer’s and timer’s table and team benches are located. The area shall be bounded by a line drawn 28 feet from the end line toward the division line.

2. Changing the way an official signals a foul against a player. The official shall verbally inform the offender, then with finger(s) of two hands indicate to the scorer the number of the offender and the number of the free throws.

3. Restricting the identifying names that may be placed on the jersey to include, if used, lettering with school name, school’s nickname, school logo name, player’s name and/or abbreviation of the official school name placed horizontally on the jersey. Also, the panel in the shoulder area of the jersey on the back may be used for placing an identifying name as well.

4. Stopping play and giving an official warning to the head coach (and recording the warning in the official scorebook) for misconduct by the coach or other bench personnel, unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul is assessed. A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

Have you observed any of the following this year?

1. Increasing number of players wearing protective headgear.

2. Home teams wearing uniforms other than white for special recognitions.

3. Teams using balls that do not have the required NFHS Authenticating Mark.

4. Inconsistency among officials in allowing knee pads (and other pads) that do not meet the color requirements within the rule.

5. Concerns expressed by participants in volleyball and girls basketball about the differences in restrictions on hair-control devices, headbands and jersey waist-band rolling.

6. Increasing number of player-control fouls being called.

7. In states using the 28-foot coaching box, an increasing number of coaches using the coaching box inappropriately.

8. Decreasing number of technical fouls being called as a result of using the “bench warning.”

9. Increasing number of players wearing knee pads and claiming they are knee braces.

10. Increasing number of participants who are wearing warm-up clothing covering illegal uniforms and/or apparel that causes a delay in starting the game and/or contentious interaction between officials and coaches.

11. Increasing number of schools using scoreboards to time the time-outs that are granted, causing game personnel to not know how much time is remaining in a quarter.

About the rules for 2018-19 – Would you favor?

1. Awarding no free throws for common fouls prior to the sixth team foul each quarter.

2. Awarding a technical foul for slapping the backboard even though there is a try attempt.

3. Changing quarters to halves and any rules surrounding the speed up of play.

4. Using the 3-foot-wide arc under the basket to help clarify block/charge.

5. Changing home uniforms to a dark color and away uniforms to white.

6. Adding a rule to allow a coach to request a time-out near the end of the game to allow for bench personnel to enter the game – and only for that purpose.

7. Allowing the use of a 35-second shot clock by state association adoption.

8. Adopting a 35-second shot clock for boys and girls games nationwide, effective in a defined future season.

9. Adopting a 30-second shot clock for boys and girls games nationwide, effective in a defined future season.

10. Delineating further in the rules between knee/ankle sleeves and knee/ankle braces with allowances that knee/ankle sleeves may be any color used in the team uniform.

11. Removing color restrictions on arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves, compressions shorts, tights and permitted wristbands and headwear, provided each is a single, solid color.

12. Expanding use of the “tipped-ball” signal used in officiating potential backcourt violations to assist with regular out-of-bounds calls?

13. Having one signal to cover player-control and team-control situations, using the fist straight out as the team-control signal is currently.

14. Clarifying that stitching on the functioning seam of a sleeve may be a different color than the sleeve.

15. Beginning with the sixth team foul each quarter, the opponent shoots two free throws for all subsequent fouls.

16. Resetting the fouls to zero each quarter if the rule eliminating the 1-and-1 is adopted.

17. Permitting headbands with knots in the back and tails.

18. Changing the width of the headband from 2 inches to 3 inches?

19. Permitting coaches to only call a time-out during a dead ball, including after a made basket.

20. Permitting leg sleeves/tights/leggings to be black, white, beige or the color of the shorts/pants. All team members DO NOT have to be wearing the same color, but each individual must have the same color.

21. Eliminating the jump ball at the beginning of the game. The visiting team would get first possession and the arrow would be set after legal inbounds.

22. Allowing coaches to shorten a time-out to 30 seconds. If only full time-outs are available, allowing coaches to request only 30 seconds rather than 60 seconds.

23. Charging a direct technical foul to the head coach if players enter the game with illegal equipment (sleeves, tights, headbands, wristbands, undershirts, wearing uniform incorrectly, etc.).

24. Adding a provision to Rule 4, Section 40, Article 2 to stipulate that in order for a screen to be legal, the screener must have in-bounds status.

25. Including pregame dunking as one of the behaviors that would constitute a warning to the head coach (during pregame warmups, participants are considered to be bench personnel).

26. Prohibiting schools from using the scoreboard clock to time the time-outs that are granted so all game personnel will be able to see how much time is left in a period.

27. Resuming the backcourt 10-second count after the defensive team causes the ball to go out-of-bounds in the backcourt of the offensive team (resets to 10 seconds on fouls, time-outs, defensive violations).

28. Limiting apparel choices to solid black or solid white.

29. Requiring team members who are warming up to remove warm-up gear that will not be worn during the game at least three minutes prior to the start of each game so officials have the opportunity to identify and to rectify illegal apparel violations.

30. Starting overtime by using the alternating-possession arrow and eliminating the jump ball. Overtime is an “extension of the fourth quarter” in all areas, e.g., direction of play, fouls on each player.

Feedback to NFHS Basketball Rules Committee – Do you believe?

1 In the past five years, there have been too many rules changes approved by the committee not dealing specifically with risk minimization.

2. In the past five years, there have been too many rules changes approved by the committee that mirror the college game.

3. The committee should spend more time reviewing the state of the game from a national perspective.

4. The committee should spend more time educating coaches and game officials on existing rules rather than creating new rules.

Missing Link ...
 

I forgot to copy the last page of the survey (general concerns about the NFHS rules committee). Could somebody please post it?

No Jump Balls, Never, Ever ...
 

21. Eliminating the jump ball at the beginning of the game. The visiting team would get first possession and the arrow would be set after legal inbounds.
30. Starting overtime by using the alternating-possession arrow and eliminating the jump ball. Overtime is an “extension of the fourth quarter” in all areas, e.g., direction of play, fouls on each player.

Wait until Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wakes up from his early afternoon nap and reads this. He's (in the vernacular of the 1960's) "gonna have a cow".

He may get so agitated that he won't be able to get any sleep when he tries to take his late afternoon nap.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.w...=0&w=230&h=173

It's about time they addressed the pernicious problem of different colored stitching!!!

Seriously, who the hell brought that one up?

Is the survey out already?

Abomination To The Game Of Basketball ...
 

Hey! I've been complaining about the different colored stitching on the functioning seam of sleeves for thirty-seven years (way before Allen Iverson got bursitis in his right elbow).

It's about damn good time that the NFHS finally did something about it. The existing rule is an abomination to the game of basketball.

I received the survey link in an email from our Connecticut interscholastic high school sports governing body (CIAC) today (Sunday).

More micro-managing, solutions looking for problems. Do the powers that be do this stuff just to justify their paychecks and authority?

Sure BillyMac, I Can Help You Out ...
 

Feedback to NFHS Basketball Rules Committee – Do you believe?

1 In the past five years, there have been too many rules changes approved by the committee not dealing specifically with risk minimization.

2. In the past five years, there have been too many rules changes approved by the committee that mirror the college game.

3. The committee should spend more time reviewing the state of the game from a national perspective.

4. The committee should spend more time educating coaches and game officials on existing rules rather than creating new rules.

I took it earlier this week.

And, some bodies do not allow a different colored stitching (the rule does say "solid color"), and some do. Heck, some might allow it if it's not too obvious, but not allow it if it is clearly contrasting.

I think you have both been victims of a major spoofing campaign.

The obvious source of this survey was www.theonion.com.

Here it is...
 

found the survey on their website:

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...questionnaires

Just a few thoughts...


The rest I have no clear opinion one way or another-

They Shoot Horses, Don't They ??? ...
 

Over the past decades, as the number of jump balls has decreased to almost none (compared to several (at three different circles) in games many years ago), officials just don't know the jump ball rules like they use to know them. Most officials (both tossers, and nontossers) just hope for the best, maybe catching a jumper tapping the ball on the way up, or catching the ball before the jump ball ends. Many officials have little understanding of what jumpers and nonjumpers can do before the toss, during the toss, and after the toss. I've heard very otherwise competent officials tell all ten players, "Don't move.", before tossing, and I've heard officials tell players that they can't stand behind an opponent when both are several (more than three feet) away from the circle.

We're only one, or two, jump balls a game from doing away with them all together, let's put the jump ball out of it's misery, it's the only humane thing to do.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.z...=0&w=300&h=300

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

"Hold your spots", said by the referee, or tosser, before the jump ball, is only rule based for some of the players. One exception to this rule, and there are others, is that players on the jump ball circle can move off the jump ball circle at any time: before the toss, during the toss, or after the toss.

"You can't stand behind him”, stated by the referee, or the umpire, before a jump ball, to a player who is directly behind an opponent, both whom are ten feet off the jump ball circle, is not rule based. The rule that players can’t stand behind, within three feet, of an opponent, only applies to players on, and within three feet of, the jump ball circle. Players farther back than that can stand wherever they want, as long as they get to that spot first.

You sly dog.......
 

You have six threads in an 11 post thread......nice job !!!!!

NCAA-W doesn't start bonus on the sixth foul.

I agree with the technical but eliminate the "wearing uniform incorrectly." This would help to eliminate inconsistencies in application and also put the onus directly on the shoulders of where it belongs, the coaches.

In PA, the PIAA requires us to ask coaches if their teams are equiped properly according to the NFHS. If they answer yes and they aren't, they should get penalized.

Correct, I just meant the concept of double bonus after so many fouls, and resetting them at quarter.

Fair enough, and I agree, we'd all stop having to deal with uniform issues in a hurry!

I've started the survey and find that I don't care about most of the changes made for last season. Rule changes such as the coaches box being extended and uniform name restrictions were never an issue in the first place (at least around here in central Ohio).

As for proposed rule changes, for the most part they seem unnecessary (the one about changing away teams to white and home teams to a dark color made me say "what" out loud). However, some are ok...

I voted for removing color restrictions on sleeves and such, as I'd love not to be part of the fashion police. Although I did voted "no" on the knotted headbands, as I feel that would introduce follow-up rules about the length of the tied ends and size of the knots.

The one about coaches being able to shorten time outs to 30 seconds was intriguing, but in the end it seems unnecessary.

I do like clarifying that a screen must be in bounds for the screen to be legal.

I also like team members needing to remove warm-up clothing three minutes before game time so we can make sure they're uniform is legal.. Not that I've had this issue, but it would avoid a possible argument with a coach about a starter needing to be replaced so they can change their undershirt or something.

And if overtime is an extension of the 4th quarter, why not use the AP arrow instead of having another jump ball?

It seems that most of these rules changes are introduced just to give somebody at the Fed something to do. You know... to justify them having a job.

One Less Irritant ...
 

I love the extended coaching box. If coaches aren't standing in front of the table blocking the view of the scorekeeper as I report fouls, I can just ignore where they're standing. I've gone all season without ever saying, "Hey coach, can you please stay in the box". Not even once. One less irritant between me and the coaches.

I haven't used the written unsporting warning (I've gone directly to a technical foul) but it's a nice tool to have in my referee tool belt in case I need it, and I know that others in my little corner of Connecticut have used the written warning successfully.

You young whippersnappers have no respect for the "Ancient Days" when we used real Peach Baskets and the Court was enclosed by chicken wire fencing to keep the Ball in Play and to protect the Players and Officials from the fans. Ah, those were the good old days!

Now let me go back to my nap! :mad:

MTD, Sr.

The coach's box has never been a problem for me. So the size of it has not made any difference.

And I've gone straight to a tech a couple of times, and both times I don't recall a time during the game where a warning was applicable. The coaches in both instances went from 0-60. However, I admit that the warning can be helpful and hopefully I take advantage of that tool.

Help me understand #19
 

When I read this #19 seemed to be about only allowing timeout to be called from the bench/head coach during a dead ball. However another user posted a reponse that made it seem like it was about WHO calls the TO, not when?

19. Permitting coaches to only call a time-out during a dead ball, including after a made basket.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is already the worst rule in NCAA Men's, no need to expand it to HS (and younger). Why add a middle man? Other than a trap in a corner and similar situations, virtually all timeouts are strategic and wanted by the HC. Not like you have captains saying, "Hmm... I think we need a break here..."

FWIW I would love the rule to change to only allow timeouts to be called at a dead ball. I dont think it should be available as a tactic to bail out an offensive player who is trapped. Let them work their way out of it, or turn it over. Letting the coach jump in and save them with (what I consider is) an admistrative move is stupid. Let the players sort it out on the court.

To me, this seems to imply that you have coaches coming out of the box past the 28 foot line, which is not the direction the box was extended? If I'm reading that right, then you are still having the same issue as before. I have no issue with the extension of the coaches box, but if coaches were out of their box in the past, it was almost always on the half-court side, not the baseline side, so that rule change didn't make a big difference in games that I saw.

The proposed rule change would only allow a head coach to call a timeout during a dead ball, and would require a player on the court to request the timeout if the ball is live. I just think that it adds a middle man where it isn't necessary. If you're standing right in front of the HC, and they ask you for a timeout, if this rule is changed, you can't do it, instead he has to call out to a player who has to make the same request to you. Just isn't worth it, especially the lower the level.

Agreed. Lol- It also would do away with the occasional time out given when a coach calls "five out."

Walk Them Back ...
 

Our inconsistencies have always been with coaches down on the endline. Some of our officials tolerated it, others didn't. All of us here in my little corner of Connecticut were always on the same page regarding the other direction, if they're near the table, walk them back.

With the new rule, we've cut our problems in half.

PA just got access to the survey. Too binary, "yes" or "no." Needs a third option, "who cares?"

Can't you just skip the question?

I did--repeatedly.

Based on the results of the football survey, I am just not bothering to complete these from now on. The rules committee just does what it wants anyway.

What if they answer "no"? What if the coach doesn't know? What if the question is not asked?

6. Adding a rule to allow a coach to request a time-out near the end of the game to allow for bench personnel to enter the game – and only for that purpose.

This sounds like a good idea.

If the coach answers no then you say, they better be before the start of the game or we’ll have a technical to start the game. If the coach doesn’t know it’s his fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It does seem to be that way, yes. If sizable majorities of both coaches and officials are in favor of multiple rules changes, and none of them get passed? What's the point?

So the question has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement. The players are either legally equipped or not, and how or if the coach answers the question has no bearing on the punishment.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Raymond, you are correct. In PA, we are required to ask the question as part of our mandatory pre-game captains/coaches meeting. The perfunctory answer has always been yes; I've never had a coach say no.

And there is no linkage between an incorrect answer and the ruling when a player is illegally uniformed. The "punishment" is based on the illegality itself, not on the coach's earlier, erroneous reply to the question.

No argument with that and I don't believe asking the question is even needed. Ether they are or they aren't and that question will not correct the behavior.

Can't you equate that to checking the book at around 12 minutes to give time to correct any mistakes? Even if you don't check early, just like not asking about the legality of the uniforms, the penalty is the same.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It would be the equivalent if we were checking the uniforms instead of asking about them. We don't check the book by asking the coach if his roster has been correctly entered into the scorebook and if the starters are marked.

Fine. But the point is the same... It's not a bad idea to be proactive.

Honestly, I personally don't even ask anymore. But I'm not going to come down on those that do or work in places where it's required.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

True, if all we're talking about is, say, illegal numbers or something.

But, and this might be more true in other sports (the states / FED aren't going to have the question only for some sports and not for others), if someone is wearing / using something illegal and someone gets hurt by that illegal item, having asked the question can be part of a defense.

I'm coming down on the state, not the officials. We don't know if players are properly equipped until we visually inspect the players. Asking a coach doesn't change or influence the enforcement. And the only technical fouls are for illegal numbers and not wearing white@home/dark@road. So if his team is wearing a bunch of illegal t-shirts the only penalty is they can't participate until they remove the t-shirts.

Unfortunately a lot of officials in my state think that if we don't ask, we can't enforce.

Of course they believe a lot of other things too. Like how referees are 'supposed' to stay opposite the table during the national anthem, lineups, etc. Which the mechanics manual alludes to during the pre-game warmup, but does not specify where officials should stand after the warmup.

A curiosity, fwiw: I work two state-certified sports, basketball and soccer, with a mandated pre-game statement that must be read verbatim.

For basketball, that statement includes, in part, this sentence: "Coaches, please certify to the contest officials that your contestants are legally equipped and uniformed according to NFHS rules and PIAA adoptions."

For soccer, that sentence reads, "Coaches, please certify to the officials that your contestants will be legally equipped and uniformed according to NFHS rules and PIAA adoptions at the kickoff."

Do these statements release game officials from any equipment related injury liability?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My legal opinion is that the statement would have limited effect--almost useless--as a defense, although PI is not an area I practiced in.

And can anyone point to a case where an official was actually sued for failing to identify something in a player's equipment? (That dangerous white elbow sleeve, perhaps?)

If the referee is supposed to inspect, being told they comply does nothing; if the referee is not supposed to inspect, it's hard to point at the referee rather than the coach (and thereby the school) that had responsibility to ensure compliance. In practical terms, referees are supposed to identify dangerous equipment and could potentially be on the hook--but the requirement that the coach certify means, at a minimum, the coach would also be a defendant, as well as the school that employees him.

But I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with legal liability. It's trying to make coaches responsible for their teams. (In soccer, any cautions for improper equipment would be player issues, except in NFHS where the coach certifies, and then he gets the caution if a player has improper equipment. [For those who don't know soccer, a caution with a yellow card is a rough equivalent of a T in hoops,])