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.

[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

... 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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

change where they removed socks from the logo restriction.

JRutledge is 100% correct. It was an actual NFHS rule change, socks were removed from the logo restriction in 2000-01. Socks were listed under logo restrictions for the four previous years, maybe longer since my rulebooks only go back to 1996-97 (I've officiated since 1980).

I'm not going to quibble about this being a sock restriction, or a logo restriction, it's still a nice ancient citation. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is still the king of ancient citations, but JRutledge is a formidable challenger.

[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.