T or not?

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is this confusion caused by the NFHS preseason guide?

Yes, the NFHS preseason guide, NFHS PowerPoint, and NFHS Illustrated rules all showed that illegal apparel was penalized by technical foul to the head coach. They then referenced PEN 10-6-4 (illegal uniforms) and 10-6-3 (participation after disqualification, which don't exactly apply.

I have spoken directly with Theresia Wynns with NFHS to confirm that they were all published erroneously.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by griblets

Yes, the NFHS preseason guide, NFHS PowerPoint, and NFHS Illustrated rules all showed that illegal apparel was penalized by technical foul to the head coach. They then referenced PEN 10-6-4 (illegal uniforms) and 10-6-3 (participation after disqualification, which don't exactly apply.



I have spoken directly with Theresia Wynns with NFHS to confirm that they were all published erroneously.

I can confirm that. This was a proposed rule change from one of the committee members in April that was ultimately not adopted. As is typical of the NFHS, some editor got ahead of themself, and then some incompetent senior editor let it go to press without the proper quality assurance.

How does stuff like this happen every stinkin’ year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This was a proposed rule change from one of the committee members in April that was ultimately not adopted. As is typical of the NFHS, some editor got ahead of themself, and then some incompetent senior editor let it go to press without the proper quality assurance. How does stuff like this happen every stinkin’ year?

Here's the proposal: 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 (see 3-4) 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.

Proposed by Gene Menees of Hermitage, Tennessee.

Part of me wanted it to go through, and part of me didn't.

I thought that the penalty was too harsh, too harsh so that some officials may not bother enforcing, so it's ignored.

Maybe just make the coach sit with no technical foul of any kind.

Mixed feelings.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I thought that the penalty was too harsh, too harsh so that some officials may not bother enforcing, so it's ignored.

This reminds me of something else, but I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Hasn't the NFHS "downgraded" penalties in the past because officials weren't enforcing because officials believed that the penalty was too harsh?

Maybe "leaving the court for unauthorized reasons", or "excessively swinging elbows with no contact"?

They're now violations. Were either, or both, ever technical fouls?

What am I thinking of?

C'mon Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., help me out, make the trip up to your attic before it gets too cold.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hasn't the NFHS "downgraded" penalties in the past because officials weren't enforcing because officials believed that the penalty was too harsh?

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

How about "excessively swinging elbows with no contact"?

Let's save Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. from making a trip up to his attic. You know, he's not as young as he used to be. In fact, I don't believe that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. has ever been young.