NFHS Preseason Guide 2018 -- a problem
 

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.

Good catch Nevada.

MTD, Sr.

As always all over it my man!

Illegal Apparel ...
 

As Nevadaref stated, it was a proposed rule change, but one that was not, obviously, accepted by the committee.

It was proposed by Gene Menees of Hermitage, Tennessee.

The head coach shall not permit a team member to participate while wearing an illegal uniform or illegal apparel.

Penalty – Direct technical foul charged to the head coach. Rule 10, Section 6, Article 4: The head coach shall not permit a team member to participate while wearing an illegal uniform or illegal apparel.

Rationale: It makes the rule easier to understand by officials, coaches & players. We are spending more time discussing what is legal & illegal with uniforms & apparel than we are spending with hand checking, post-play, etc. It will also put more responsibility on coaches to make sure their players are dressed legally.

The can of worms has been opened.
 

The publication of this erroneous information will be felt, unfortunately, for a while.

A mitigating factor is that not all associations provide the NFHS preseason guide. I know that the CA chapter for which I officiate does not.

I Heard It Through the Grapevine (Marvin Gaye, 1968) ...
 

Unfortunately? Maybe some good will come from this. Coaches may hear about it "through the grapevine" and actually do their job.

Not the first time....backcourt violation anyone?

Around here, the NFHS Preseason Guide is less known than even the NFHS Interpretations. Which, by the way, are typically the last annual release by the NFHS to clean up all the preceding errors that have been made in the preseason publications and documents up to that point.
In other words, we can expect an Interpretation to correct the error in the Preseason Guide.
My guess.

NFHS Preseason Guide ???
 

The NFHS Preseason Guide is not provided to us here in my little corner of Connecticut (I never even heard about it until this thread).

I'm on a new committee this season and I will be expected to write an article on new rules for area newspapers. It sounds like the guide can be a good resource for me to base my article on.

Can I find this guide online? If so, where? If not, can someone post it on the Forum? If not, can someone email it to me, send me a private message and I'll reply with my real email address.

I think that is the point.
 

It appears to me that NFHS wants coaches to embrace a role in the policing of their teams instead of leaving it up to the officials.

I think this is it.
 

I am assuming this powerpoint presentation is what we are referring to:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m7_...ew?usp=sharing

Realize I'm making an assumption, as it is not labeled as such and has been co-branded by CBOA.

No. This is (or was before the CBOA additions) a powerpoint sent by NFHS to the states to be used in rules presentations to officials and coaches.

There is also a 12-14 page newsletter sent out. It's co-written by RefMag and mailed to officials in some states -- we get it here every year. I think they were sent by the state last Friday, so we should begetting them here soon.

PowerPoint, Newsletter ???
 

Thanks guys.

Concussion ...
 

From the NFHS PowerPoint 2018:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/...877213f6_m.jpg

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

We're Certainly Not What You Would Call Experts ...
 

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 ...".

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.O...=0&w=288&h=164

Chung, chung.

I thought it was: Doink! Doink! :p

MTD, Sr.

Another . . .
 

. . . 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.

You've Come A Long Way Baby ...
 

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.

Thanks Camron Rust ...
 

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.

Ancient Times © Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., 2018 ...
 

http://www.timesbulletin.com/Images/Images/107869.jpg

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

AremRed,
I just did the online rules meeting and was shocked that they allowed that seemingly erroneous NFHS PowerPoint slide, attached, to remain in the presentation, designating a direct technical on the coach for any apparel infraction. Do you have any connections from whom you can confirm whether or not they actually want us to do and teach that or if it's the obvious error that we suspect it is which they'll be correcting with a followup dispatch of some sort? I've gotta teach this rule next week.

Not only did this erroneous information make it in the 2018 preseason guide, but also in the Simplified & Illustrated rules book, pages 14 & 15.

"Simplified..." oh, the irony!

I just accepted the role of rules interpreter in our local association. This issue is already causing problems at our first meeting. I'm very interested in an official correction that I can hopefully share at our next meeting.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

And the hits just keep on coming.

Verbal Clarification
 

In preparation for our association meeting tonight, I called NFHS about pages 14 and 15 in the Simplified and Illustrated rules book. I spoke with Theresia Wynns who confirmed that the pages are in error, that there is no technical foul for apparel, only illegal uniforms. She confirmed that the rule has not changed regarding apparel and the associated penalty.

She mentioned that the book was published before the correction was made, but the slides have been corrected. I should have asked for a link to the corrected slides, because I can't find them!

FHSAA (Florida) still has posted the old slides. That will be my next call.

Not as important as an incorrect ruling, but in the rule book on the 3rd page in from the front, the Points of Emphasis, #4 is listed as "Officiating Professionalism and Use of Proper Technology." They then double down on their incorrect statement of Technology rather than Terminology in the comments section on page 69. This in no way affects how we will call the game, but man, who is proofreading these things?? Drives me crazy, put a little pride in what you do!

Similarly, while using Proper Technology, you and I want to be careful to use the term "Fumble (NOT Muff)".
Even though the term "muff" is used in the Casebook in 4.15.1B, 4.44A, 9.1.1, and 9.2.1B.
...et al...

I don't know what the reference your'e talking about says, but "muff" is a valid term and is different than a fumble.

Fumble: A ball that slips from a players grasp, accidentally. A fumble can only happen to a player already holding the ball.

Muff: A ball that a player unsuccessful catches when trying to end a dribble or catch a pass....happens to a player who is not holding the ball.



It is a basic English word whose natural meaning is all we need. There is no need for the book to define every word. Some are fine as they are.

Does the book define what a hand is? :p

It's in the POE encouraging "Proper Technology" on p.73 of the new Rules Book. Without knowing that POE, how can you be sure the technology you use is actually correct? You'll probably be using phrases like, "...after Team A established player control", ...when the ball missed the rim", and a host of other improper technological terms that shouldn't be found in your vocabulary.
:D

Illegal Equipment ...
 

Everybody knows what a muff is.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=166&h=162