NFHS Update

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Speak for yourself. I'm one (which is one more than "none") of "us" and I've personally suggested three rule changes that have become part of the NFHS Rulebook.

(And when one suggests a new or revised rule, besides offering a logical rationale, one also has to make any and all necessary edits to the NFHS Casebook affected by said rule change.)

If you are so connected and knowledgeable, then why are you going on and on about something you do not even know the answer about? Wouldn't you already know? Wouldn't you already have the direct answer? All I see you doing is debating something you are not sure about. Having suggested a rules change is not anything special. You are not on the committee apparently or in a position to vote on such change.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are not on the committee apparently or in a position to vote on such change.

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... none of us are going to edit the rulebooks or casebooks ...

I did.

One of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game.

Just complaining about NFHS rules (not directed at JRutledge, but lots of Forum members, including me) on the Forum, or on other forms of social media, probably won't help fix broken rules (I doubt that the NFHS rules committee keeps tabs on what we're discussing here on the Forum).

When we find broken rules, and we have a possible fix, we should work to fix them. As individual officials. Or through our local, or state organizations. Or through our state interscholastic sports governing bodies. Let's be part of the solution.

We're not "tilting at windmills". Sometimes (not necessarily all the time) the NFHS, through all the bureaucratic fog, listens.

And I'm just an official with absolutely no title within any level of my organization other than member.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.



Say what you will, but you can't dispute the fact that one of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game. And I'm just an official with no title within any level of my organization other than member.

As usual, you make a mountain out of a molehill. The comment was at best an expression considering that to my knowledge or anyone's knowledge there is not a person that is on this site that is a committee member. What you do in your state or if someone listens to you, good for you. But if you were so knowledgeable, then you would not be debating with me (someone not on the NF Committee or claims to even attempt to give rules change suggestions other than a casual conversation with certain people).

We gave you the rules that might have been pulled from the NCAA. It appears that they clearly used similar language from the NCAA in this rules change. You keep going back to some older interpretation that may or may not still apply. You have not given or no one here has shown a single newer interpretation that either supports or opposes any position we have discussed (likely because there is not one posted yet). So until we have some official word from either an NF publication like the casebook, Simplified and Illustrated Book, NF Guidebook or even something more specific in the rulebook right now we are speculating. All reasonable signs point towards an NCAA change and if that is not the case, the NF certainly had to realize that the NCAA changed a rule last season and would have to clarify they are doing something different. After all the NF has not been good at "thinking" of what their literature means in the bigger picture. So why would I be surprised if they did not act like they were aware of the possible confusion they might be caused if I were to believe this was only for one, single interpretation change.

If I was not bored, I probably would not have responded at all to your comments. But this is not about you Billy. Most of these discussions or opinions shared are not about you.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But if you were so knowledgeable, then you would not be debating with me

So I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate with you?

Granted, you're a outstanding official (state finals in multiple sports) and I believe that you are, or were, some type of clinician/trainer/interpreter (these titles don't just go to any knucklehead), but I still have a right to express my opinion.

What makes you think that you can take that right away from me?

Is there a basketball rule gospel according to JRutledge that I don't know about?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It appears that they clearly used similar language from the NCAA in this rules change. You keep going back to some older interpretation that may or may not still apply ... All reasonable signs point towards an NCAA change.

Similar language was the word "deflection" (a common word in the game of basketball).

I agree that the word is used in the NCAA version of the backcourt rule, and that may be a reasonable sign that the NFHS is going in a direction further than that indicated in the press release.

But the word was also used in the bitterly criticized NFHS interpretation, also a reasonable sign that the NFHS just wants to fix a broken interpretation (which, by the way, is also mentioned in the press release).

Older? The NFHS, just last year, doubled down on that bitterly criticized interpretation, making it less than a year old.

We've seen the new backcourt rule language in its entirety. Backcourt is not going to be a Point of Emphasis. The press release stated that the change was to clarify an "inconsistency in interpretation". That's what I'm basing my opinion on. Are those not reasonable signs (I've offered that your side may also be based on reasonable signs)?

I seriously doubt that the NFHS can move to the NCAA version of the backcourt deflection rule without any additional change in the new rule language. An editorial change (which we haven't yet seen), on its own, won't do the trick (editorial changes are usually just minor changes). They wouldn't (or maybe they would, after all, it is the NFHS were discussing here) come up with an NCAA-type deflection backcourt annual interpretation without additional rule language changes (like the NCAA rule). It can happen, but I doubt that it will be this coming season.

I'm just happy that they (apparently) changed that horrible "simultaneous last to touch, first to touch" interpretation. I probably would have never ruled that in a game (if I did it would have taken all the game management skills that I have to keep a coach from being ejected, "But the defender deflected the ball into the backcourt".), but it really bothered me when the NFHS doubled down on it last year.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Similar language was the word "deflection" (a common word in the game of basketball).

I agree that the word is used in the NCAA version of the backcourt rule, and that may be a reasonable sign that the NFHS is going in a direction further than that indicated in the press release.

But the word was also used in the bitterly criticized NFHS interpretation, also a reasonable sign that the NFHS just wants to fix a broken interpretation (which, by the way, is also mentioned in the press release).

Older? The NFHS, just last year, doubled down on that bitterly criticized interpretation, making it less than a year old.

I will put it this way. Our State Administrator for Basketball said that there seems to be a trend from the NF to adopt NCAA Rules for rules changes. So since they adopted this only real rules change, I would doubt that the conversation was not about the NCAA Rule change from last year. I really do not care what the NF doubled down on as it appears that was controversial at least here and if there was a change here, they had to be acutely aware what the NCAA recently changed. If they changed an entire rule to apply to one interpretation and that interpretation was clearly not mentioned in the current literature, then that is awful specific that would have other implications. If they said that "last touch, first touch" was the rule but they have an exception if the defense deflects the ball, then to me that sounds a lot like the NCAA rule.

Again, I reserve the right to see what comes out later from the NF. We are not resolving this in this conversation. I just would find it odd. But as a multiple sports officials that have seen the NF play games with language, anything is possible. And this was at least a clearer than other NF rules when they adopted "horsecollar" language in football or even "obstruction" rules changes in baseball the first time around. I know the NF had to come back and clarify their language or even change the language to reflect their intentions after the fact. Maybe that will be done here too. I have little confidence in the NF's ability to realize the impact of their changes when the wording is the most key part of their understanding of what is intended.

Stay tuned.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Our State Administrator for Basketball said that there seems to be a trend from the NF to adopt NCAA Rules for rules changes. then to me that sounds a lot like the NCAA rule.

Agree with both you, and your State Administrator (didn't need him, I would have just agreed with you). I've seen the "trickle down" effect in action for over thirty-seven years. It never ever goes uphill, its always downhill (NCAA to NFHS). And this is what makes your argument reasonable.

Yes, I find it odd that the NFHS would come out with a rule change press release with the sole purpose (other than something about pebbles on a basketball) of fixing a badly broken interpretation.

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.

But, I don't believe that there's enough "meat" in the new rule language to make the change to the NCAA rule. If the NFHS was going to make change (and they may eventually do it, see the trickle down rule above) they would have put in some additional rule language, that would have been publicized in the press release. Why keep it a secret?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have little confidence in the NF's ability to realize the impact of their changes when the wording is the most key part of their understanding of what is intended.

Agree. See "throwin team control backcourt" rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We've seen the new backcourt rule language in its entirety. Backcourt is not going to be a Point of Emphasis. The press release stated that the change was to clarify an "inconsistency in interpretation". That's what I'm basing my opinion on. Are those not reasonable signs (I've offered that your side may also be based on reasonable signs)?

You seem to be the only person here making that point of view. I do not recall when a rule was changed they had a POE dealing with the rule they changed. Usually, the change is emphasized enough. I am sure there will be several interpretations or examples to highlight the change.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I seriously doubt that the NFHS can move to the NCAA version of the backcourt deflection rule without any additional change in the new rule language. An editorial change (which we haven't yet seen), on its own, won't do the trick. They wouldn't (or maybe they would, after all, it is the NFHS were discussing here) come up with an NCAA-type deflection backcourt annual interpretation without additional rule language changes (like the NCAA rule). It can happen, but I doubt that it will be this coming season.

What else needs to be changed? Interpretations can and have been changed all the time to reflect the intention of the rules they want to be applied. And they have not announced the editorial changes to my knowledge. Maybe they will do that and this will all go away (at least I can hope).

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not recall when a rule was changed they had a POE dealing with the rule they changed. Usually, the change is emphasized enough.

Agree. My reference was irrelevant, it's just that I was running out of ammunition and had to throw something, like the bad guys throwing their empty revolvers at Superman. Yeah, bullets can't hurt Superman, but a thrown revolver can?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... they have not announced the editorial changes to my knowledge.

You're right, they haven't. But don't hang your hat on that one. Editorial changes are usually minor changes and a change to the NCAA backcourt deflection rule would be a big change that would need additional rule language changes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You're right, they haven't. But don't hang your hat on that one. Editorial changes are usually minor changes and a change to the NCAA backcourt deflection rule would be a big change that would need additional rule language changes.

Why would you need additional language? Just get rid of the stupid interpretation. Problem solved.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which is my point exactly. That's why I titled my post "Grass Roots Effort" and even included an image to underscore my point.



I did.

One of us is one more than "none of us", which was the point of my recent post. We all have the ability to make rule changes, connected, or not (as I am not), as long as we have a rationale reason for such a change, can do a good job of explaining that rationale in writing, and are willing to work through the paperwork. Of course, it also has to be a change for the good, to improve the game.

Just complaining about NFHS rules (not directed at JRutledge, but lots of Forum members, including me) on the Forum, or on other forms of social media, probably won't help fix broken rules (I doubt that the NFHS rules committee keeps tabs on what we're discussing here on the Forum).

When we find broken rules, and we have a possible fix, we should work to fix them. As individual officials. Or through our local, or state organizations. Or through our state interscholastic sports governing bodies. Let's be part of the solution.

We're not "tilting at windmills". Sometimes (not necessarily all the time) the NFHS, through all the bureaucratic fog, listens.

And I'm just an official with absolutely no title within any level of my organization other than member.

We have the ability to "suggest" rule changes, not "make" them.

And any rule change that ties into one of your suggestions may have been suggested by somebody on the committee or other folks making suggestions.

What Jeff and I are questioning is your constant (and often 1-person) debates about unclear verbiage that no one in this forum has any control over.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What Jeff and I are questioning is your constant (and often 1-person) debates about unclear verbiage that no one in this forum has any control over.

I should have said this some time ago on this site.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... no one in this forum has any control over.

But we do, very limited, and sometimes the NFHS may not listen to us, but we still have some very limited control over rule changes. By either suggesting changes, or by completing the NFHS questionnaire that we're sent every year, or by contacting members of the rules committee. One may even send it up the line through one's local, or state (or in my case, international), official's association, possibly with the help of association officers, or one can send it up though one's state interscholastic sports governing body. Another possibility is to go through a state coaches association for those states that have such. It's not easy, but officials voices can be heard.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But we do, very limited, and sometimes the NFHS may not listen to us, but we still have some very limited control over rule changes. By either suggesting changes, or by completing the NFHS questionnaire that we're sent every year, or by contacting members of the rules committee.

You should draft up that email to the NFHS and let them know that this interpretation, or rule change or whatever it is, is still causing confusion.

What would be nice if you would stop asking us the same question over and over again in different forms. We don't have an answer. We already agree with you that there needs to be further guidance.

So what exactly are you looking for? We've already identified the problem. And we've already established what should probably be the solution(s).

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You should draft up that email to the NFHS and let them know that this interpretation, or rule change or whatever it is, is still causing confusion.

I'm not confused. Not one bit. I like the rule just as it is, the added exception basically making the stupid interpretation null and void. It is also my opinion, and I'm not confused about this at all either, though I may be wrong, that the added NFHS exception does not duplicate the NCAA deflection rule. Additional NFHS rule language is needed for the NFHS rule to duplicate the NCAA rule.

NCAA: 9-12-5 A pass or any other loose ball in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

NFHS 9-9-1: EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.