2019-20 NFHS: Rumors/Desires?

[SC Official]

If the rules committee really wants something to be enforced a certain way, they need to put it in the rules. Until they do, they have no one to blame but themselves for officials not enforcing years-old interpretations.

The elbow-above-the-shoulders thing is the classic example, along with that ridiculous backcourt caseplay that was a 2017-18 interp before finally getting put to rest with the rules changes last year.

As far as announcers go, there's one eye-rolling terrible official I know of here that has a printout of the NFHS directives that he's literally given to announcers who don't adhere. Other than that, thankfully we all pretty much leave it alone as long as there isn't any cheerleading or play-by-play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If the rules committee really wants something to be enforced a certain way, they need to put it in the rules. Until they do, they have no one to blame but themselves for officials not enforcing years-old interpretations.

I agree with you and have held that same opinion for several years.

However, let's not overlook the importance of state and local trainers/interpreters/teachers/mentors/clinicians/instructors/observers, etc. Most that hold such important, responsible positions of authority are experienced veterans who should be aware of reasonably old Points of Emphasis, as well as reasonably old annual interpretations that don't make their way into the current casebook, or with reasonably old casebook plays that drop out of the current casebook for no apparent rational, or publicized reason. These experienced veterans were probably appointed, or elected, to such responsible positions because of their superior basketball officiating knowledge, including information that may not be in the current rulebook or casebook. These reasonably old Points of Emphasis and interpretations should not be ignored as part of the original training and/or continuous education process of the new members and veteran members.

That being said, the NFHS could do a much, much better job of keeping the rulebook and casebook up to date, and in line with the way they want rules and interpretations enforced. Some officials are visual learners and need a rulebook or casebook to help them to learn and/or improve their officiating skills. An up-to-date rulebook and casebook would also make the job of state and local trainers/interpreters/teachers/mentors/clinicians/instructors/observers, etc., a lot easier, with more likely successful outcomes of developing competent basketball officials.

If the NFHS isn't going to update the rulebook and casebook, I think it's a lot to ask state and local trainers/interpreters/teachers/mentors/clinicians/instructors/observers, etc., to "pick up the slack" and keep their state and local officials informed of "old" rulings, interpretations, emphases, etc.

Maybe it's too much to ask?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hopefully the raffle winner isn't announced during a live ball, or he's going to get hammered with double secret probation.

At the school I go to most, it's during a timeout in the 3rd. But, if nobody calls a timeout, they do it between periods.

Announcer Responsibilities. The announcer shall be prohibited from making an announcement while the clock is running and while the clock is stopped and the ball is live…such as during a free throw, a throw-in, etc. Doing so could potentially affect communication of coaches or players, or could be disconcerting.

...clip...

May be Announced - Examples:
• Player who scored

I think this was the contention in their own PoE. How can you announce who scored when you aren't supposed to announce while the clock is running or the ball is live? Maybe I'm wrong that this directive came from Columbus. Maybe the area schools just all made a gentlemen's agreement. It probably saves them from paying an announcer as it is usually just the home AD announcing the lineups.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Altor

How can you announce who scored when you aren't supposed to announce while the clock is running or the ball is live?

[sj]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It's right around the time of year when the rules committee meets to vote on rules changes. Any rumblings? What do you want to see?

I'd get rid of the seatbelt rule in a heartbeat if I had a choice of one change, and it's not even really close. I can't think of other rules that I hate as much as that one. I doubt it happens despite its inclusion in the questionnaire, but one can dream.

Don't know if it's necessary but it would serve to stiffen the penalty slightly for a technical foul if they allowed the offended team to pick the spot for their throw-in as opposed to the current rule stating it will take place at the division line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sj

… stiffen the penalty slightly for a technical foul if they allowed the offended team to pick the spot for their throw-in as opposed to the current rule stating it will take place at the division line.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Player989random

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.

I did not say the rule was that way last year. It was actually in the 90s when that rule was put into place.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Player989random

... 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.

Agree. Traditionally, here in Connecticut, teams don't wear their "real" uniforms during scrimmages, usually reversible practice jerseys instead, and officials don't enforce most equipment rules in scrimmages, including undershirts. I always encounter a few plays in scrimmages that would be called a lot more confidently with jerseys and undershirts of similar colors.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Player989random

... they're gonna do something about the socks.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They did that already and it lasted a year and changed it back.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They did? That is news to me.

Originally Posted by Player989random

I don't recall any sock rules last year.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It was actually in the 90s when that rule was put into place.

If we're discussing NFHS rules here (and I think we are), I'm 99.5% positive that there have never been any NFHS sock restrictions over the past forty years.

Maybe it was a proposal (possibly logo size) that was not accepted by the NFHS, or maybe it was a state high school guideline, or maybe some are confusing this topic with other rule sets, but it never made its way into the NFHS rulebook.

I wouldn't bet my house on this, but I would bet some pocket cash. Anybody interested in a fun wager? If so, citation please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If we're discussing NFHS rules here (and I think we are), I'm 99.5% positive that there have never been any NFHS sock restrictions over the past forty years.

Maybe it was a proposal that was not accepted by the NFHS, or maybe it was a state high school guideline, or maybe some are confusing this topic with other rule sets, but it never made its way into the NFHS rulebook.

I wouldn't bet my house on this, but I would bet a fairly large amount of money. Anybody interested in a fun wager? If so, citation please.

I will say it this way. If I recall this was an editorial change made and it was early in my career. I remember this because I lived in a particular place and worked with a partner that enforced this rule on more than one occasion. We all remember things differently for different reasons. I remember because of where I was an when it was enforced. This was like either the 2nd or 3rd year of my career and it was a big enough deal that I thought it was stupid. Then they made the change or even interpretation change (I am not Mark D) but I do remember this and remember the application conversations. It was stupid because I was thinking that no one provides my socks for me and why do we care if they have a logo on it. If you do not remember or maybe it was more of an issue where I lived, but it was in the rules. Again I think it was just an editorial change where they removed socks from the logo restriction. Again most people did not care but it has been proven that uniform stuff is/was an issue for years in my state.

Peace