2019-20 NFHS: Rumors/Desires?

[Player989random]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While I'm not sure that I'm in favor of your suggestion, it especially makes a lot of sense if the division line throwin is at a disadvantageous spot compared to the throwin spot if there had been no technical foul.

My question has to be where did this suggestion come from? It's not invalid, but I've never even heard anyone ever suggest it.

Let's be real guys, they're gonna do something about the socks. No NCAA or professional logos. Or some other silly-ass uniform requirement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Player989random

Let's be real guys, they're gonna do something about the socks. No NCAA or professional logos. Or some other silly-ass uniform requirement.

They did that already and it lasted a year and changed it back. And the logic was that the schools do not provide the footwear for the players like they used to if I recall. Not sure why they would do that or care.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They did that already and it lasted a year and changed it back. And the logic was that the schools do not provide the footwear for the players like they used to if I recall. Not sure why they would do that or care.

Peace

They did? That is news to me.

[sj]

Originally Posted by Player989random

My question has to be where did this suggestion come from? It's not invalid, but I've never even heard anyone ever suggest it.

Let's be real guys, they're gonna do something about the socks. No NCAA or professional logos. Or some other silly-ass uniform requirement.

I don't think I'd ever heard it either but it just came to me as an idea to toughen up the penalty. It may not even be worth the trouble. But from working games I've always thought that teams get open looks/shots on throw-in plays quite a bit with the result being a fairly high percentage of scoring on the first shot. That's completely subjective but it would be interesting to know if coaches thought the same thing. If a team has an inbounds play designed around getting the ball to their 6' 10" kid maybe they would like to take it out underneath the basket. That sort of thing. Just a thought though.

[Player989random]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They did that already and it lasted a year and changed it back. And the logic was that the schools do not provide the footwear for the players like they used to if I recall. Not sure why they would do that or care.

Peace

I don't recall any sock rules last year. At least not in VA.

Schools don't provide shooting sleeves, tights, or sweat bands either. Yet NFHS in their infinite wisdom decided to make rules governing that. Why would they care? I don't ever want to understand their uniform rules. The only one I cared about was the undershirt rule. Kid wearing a white shirt under a black uniform playing against a white team gave me enough pause to decide who had the inbound after an OOB.

Originally Posted by sj

I don't think I'd ever heard it either but it just came to me as an idea to toughen up the penalty. It may not even be worth the trouble. But from working games I've always thought that teams get open looks/shots on throw-in plays quite a bit with the result being a fairly high percentage of scoring on the first shot. That's completely subjective but it would be interesting to know if coaches thought the same thing. If a team has an inbounds play designed around getting the ball to their 6' 10" kid maybe they would like to take it out underneath the basket. That sort of thing. Just a thought though.

Yeah when I thought about it for a second, it's not a bad idea.