NFHS Preseason Guide 2018 -- a problem

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From the NFHS PowerPoint 2018:



Here in Connecticut, we've been told to never use the term "concussion" when discussing an injury with a coach. Never, ever. Verboten.

Rather: "Coach. I think that 15 got hit in the head. She looks like he's dizzy. You may want to check her."

SIGNS OF A concussion < > HAS A concussion.

And, I wouldn't say "MAY want to check her" -- if you are sending the player out, just send the player out with the reason; if it's only a "may" then don't say anything

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

SIGNS OF A concussion < > HAS A concussion.
And, I wouldn't say "MAY want to check her" -- if you are sending the player out, just send the player out with the reason; if it's only a "may" then don't say anything

By Connecticut State law, officials don't send players out for concussion like symptoms, it's the responsibility of coaches, or qualified medical professionals, to do such.

The Connecticut State Legislature worked closely our state interscholastic sports governing body to come up laws regarding interscholastic sports related concussions.

All interscholastic sports coaches, all levels, head coaches, assistants, etc., have to pass a concussion protocol class (to be renewed periodically). The decision to remove a player from a game is solely in their hands (absent a qualified medical professorial (trainer, doctor, nurse, etc.)).

That official's branch of the state interscholastic sports governing body had a seat at the table (we didn't wear our striped shirts) when this law was first proposed. The law relieves officials from most responsibilities regarding removing a player from a game for concussion like symptoms (not for blood, that's still on us).

Absent a qualified medical professorial, it's totally on the coaches, all of whom have been properly trained in concussion protocol, not the officials, to remove a possibly concussed player from a contest.

It's the State law.

Officials don't receive the same (required) professional classroom instruction that the coaches receive.

That being said, Connecticut officials have been instructed to never use the term "concussion" in describing an injury to a coach. We can describe the symptoms that we observe, i.e., dizziness, poor balance, appears dazed, or stunned, etc., or how the actual injury occurred, i.e., took an elbow to the head, head hit floor, etc., but we can't use the term "concussion".

Again, the usual caveat, "When in a State that's not Connecticut ...".



Chung, chung.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

By Connecticut State law, officials don't send players out for concussion like symptoms, it's the responsibility of coaches, or qualified medical professionals, to do such.

The Connecticut State Legislature worked closely our state interscholastic sports governing body to come up laws regarding interscholastic sports related concussions.

All interscholastic sports coaches, all levels, head coaches, assistants, etc., have to pass a yearly concussion protocol class. The decision to remove a player from a game is solely in their hands (absent a qualified medical professorial (trainer, doctor, nurse, etc.)).

That official's branch of the state interscholastic sports governing body had a seat at the table (we didn't wear our striped shirts) when this law was first proposed. The law relieves officials from most responsibilities regarding removing a player from a game for concussion like symptoms (not for blood, that's still on us).

Absent a qualified medical professorial, it's totally on the coaches, all of whom have been properly trained in concussion protocol, not the officials, to remove a possibly concussed player from a contest.

It's the State law.

Officials don't receive the same (required) professional classroom instruction that the coaches receive.

That being said, Connecticut officials have been instructed to never use the term "concussion" in describing an injury to a coach. We can describe the symptoms that we observe, i.e., dizziness, poor balance, appears dazed, or stunned, etc., or how the actual injury occurred, i.e., took an elbow to the head, head hit floor, etc., but we can't use the term "concussion".

Again, the usual caveat, "When in a State that's not Connecticut ...".



Chung, chung.

I thought it was: Doink! Doink!

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

. . . inaccurate statement on p.11:
"Allowing a coach to move within the new box between the 28-foot mark and the endline provides a coach more access to his or her players."
Problem is -- and you can determine the ultimate significance of this -- that statement holds true for floors that are 84' or longer, as rule 1-13-2 states.However, floors less than that, according to Casebook 1.13.2C, must measure 14' from the division line, then extend the box to the endline. Shorter floors mean shorter coaching boxes. All floors keep coaches from legally wandering closer than 14' from the division line and, presumably, keep them from getting in front of the table while coaching.
Valid point?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

. . . inaccurate statement on p.11:
"Allowing a coach to move within the new box between the 28-foot mark and the endline provides a coach more access to his or her players."
Problem is -- and you can determine the ultimate significance of this -- that statement holds true for floors that are 84' or longer, as rule 1-13-2 states.However, floors less than that, according to Casebook 1.13.2C, must measure 14' from the division line, then extend the box to the endline. Shorter floors mean shorter coaching boxes. All floors keep coaches from legally wandering closer than 14' from the division line and, presumably, keep them from getting in front of the table while coaching.
Valid point?

Not inaccurate. I just don't think they really intended to cover oddball floors. And even so, it still allows more access to the players vs. the old coaching box size unless the court is less than 56 feet or so (and I've never seen one that short). A 74' court would still allow for a 23' coaching box...which is still substantially larger than a 14 foot box.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not inaccurate. I just don't think they really intended to cover oddball floors. And even so, it still allows more access to the players vs. the old coaching box size unless the court is less than 56 feet or so (and I've never seen one that short). A 74' court would still allow for a 23' coaching box...which is still substantially larger than a 14 foot box.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that when the coaching box was first introduced, it was only six feet long. Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that when the coaching box was first introduced, it was only six feet long. Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

You are correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You are correct.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Why are you posting under Camron Rust's username?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Why are you posting under Camron Rust's username?

Maybe I've been posting under MTD's username all these years! Oh, wait, no that can't be me. I don't have the rulebooks from from 1776.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe I've been posting under MTD's username all these years! Oh, wait, no that can't be me. I don't have the rulebooks from from 1776.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is on the far right, in the yellow vest.

Quite dashing, isn't he?

The door on the right leads to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s attic library.

The NFHS Rules Committee was much larger back then and committee members had to wear powdered wigs.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seems that someone jumped the gun in an article which appears in the 2018 preseason guide and this has resulted in a problem. I believe that one of the rule changes under consideration, but ultimately rejected this past off-season was to make coaches accountable for illegal equipment by creating a penalty of a technical foul charged to the head coach should a player be found to be wearing an illegal item.
Well, here is what has been printed in the preseason guide:
"Coaches shall not allow players to wear illegal equipment or apparel. Should a team member participate while wearing illegal equipment or apparel, the penalty is a technical foul charged to the head coach as described in Rule 10-6-3 Pen. upon discovery."

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Illegal equipment and apparel are not the same as an illegal uniform and don't result in the same penalty.

WhAt page of the guide is this on?? I did 2 quick glances through all 16 pages and couldn’t find it.

[Nevadaref]

Page 8, in the upper left corner below PlayPic H.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seems that someone jumped the gun in an article which appears in the 2018 preseason guide and this has resulted in a problem. I believe that one of the rule changes under consideration, but ultimately rejected this past off-season was to make coaches accountable for illegal equipment by creating a penalty of a technical foul charged to the head coach should a player be found to be wearing an illegal item.
Well, here is what has been printed in the preseason guide:
"Coaches shall not allow players to wear illegal equipment or apparel. Should a team member participate while wearing illegal equipment or apparel, the penalty is a technical foul charged to the head coach as described in Rule 10-6-3 Pen. upon discovery."

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Illegal equipment and apparel are not the same as an illegal uniform and don't result in the same penalty.

The same (or essentially similar) slide / concept of a T is in the powerpoint sent out to the states.

I hope they get this clarified.

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

"Coaches shall not allow players to wear illegal equipment or apparel. Should a team member participate while wearing illegal equipment or apparel, the penalty is a technical foul charged to the head coach as described in Rule 10-6-3 Pen. upon discovery."

Not only is this wrong, it's also the wrong rule reference. 10-6-3 concerns playing a player after that player has been disqualified.

10-6-4 is closer to what they wrote, it concerns a technical foul charged to the head coach for illegal UNIFORMS, not illegal equipment or illegal apparel like they posit here.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The same (or essentially similar) slide / concept of a T is in the powerpoint sent out to the states.

I hope they get this clarified.

I was informed by one our training brethren in Hawaii that the NFHS sent out corrections to that erroneous part of their PowerPoint. Will attach it as soon as I can get it downloaded.