2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

Minnesota used the restricted arc this year. A safety rule per the MSHSL. It is sometimes difficult to administer with two officials but for the most part it wasn't a terrible change. We certainly had way less of the secondary defenders sliding in for a cheap charge call.

You can make things “safer” by accurately calling charges so ball handlers stop barreling over defenders. All without the RA.

I don’t understand why people want to penalize legal defense. Amazingly in my games when we call charges, ball handlers start pulling up.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not broke, so why fix it?

Shot clocks and restricted areas for HS are gimmicks, nothing more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Agree to disagree.

Shot clocks, timing rules, time out rules. All determine whether a game played by kids will be more or less - athlete centered or coach/product centered.

I can have a sports car that's not broke, but it might not be the best choice when my life changes and i'm taking 3 kids and dog on family vacations. Nothing wrong with sports cars or mini vans its about your priorities.

I'm not debating whether one is better or worse.

The reality is rules that increase possessions, increase required skill development, decrease coach control all drastically alter the athlete experience with the game and make it more about their experience, their abilities, their decision making. If you think a game played by kids should be more about and driven by them - taking away coach controls and increasing pace of play and number of possessions does that.

If you think having a product about wins/losses and coaches controlling programs, programs controlling leagues and coaches having more control over what all these products/results/players look like is the priority then you are good as is.

Philosophical differences and rules that change the nature of the way game is coached, played and alters both player and coach experience are not gimmicks and shouldn't be dismissed as such.

[JRutledge]

This is a game played by kids that will never play another game beyond this level. We can add all the things it is not going to automatically make the game better. It is clear at this time the NF is not that interested in those kinds of rules if they keep being presented and even used as experiments and nothing like those rules have been added. I have seen many states take on rules and eventually it comes to the NF committee and they take them on as they did in football this year. I think the people that often want these rules tend to lack perspective as to what high school sports actually is. I have said before I would be fine if these rules came into place, but it does not mean there would not be issues. We are still arguing in areas for 2 or 3 person and we want rules that the other levels only use 3 officials. Just not very well thought out if you ask me to assume these changes would make the game better.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we stop the clock with an open hand and then follow it up with the old held ball signal, or is the held ball signal completely gone?

If it's gone, how will the table crew know that it's a held ball and be ready to change the arrow? In the past, with the held ball signal, some table crews have occasionally missed it.

I am with you Bill. Furthermore, I am confused how coming out with the Held Ball is will "alleviate conflicting calls by officials when a held ball occurs" according to Theresa Wynns. How is this any different than when one Official comes out with the Foul Stop Clock Signal while another Officials comes out with the Non-Foul Stop Clock Signal.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am with you Bill. Furthermore, I am confused how coming out with the Held Ball is will "alleviate conflicting calls by officials when a held ball occurs" according to Theresa Wynns. How is this any different than when one Official comes out with the Foul Stop Clock Signal while another Officials comes out with the Non-Foul Stop Clock Signal.



MTD, Sr.

It's a lot less visible. We've been doing this for a few years. It works well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

It's a pity that they don't have anything at the high school level where experimental rules can be implemented, like the NIT

The NFHS does allow some limited experimentation. In my pre-officiating days, our state was allowed to experiment with the running clock point-differential rule before the option was adopted nationwide.

More recently, our state experimented with a limited number of games played in halves.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's a lot less visible. We've been doing this for a few years. It works well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It was not advocated here and really do not see the benefit of that position. If I am blowing my whistle and I know I have a held ball, that looks better than the signal they suggest IMO. It looks like you are about to call something else and then call a held ball to not cause another issue. That is why I am not a fan of this and probably will not change personally. I saw officials the last few weeks do this when I was at camp and many times it looked like they could have called something else. Oh well, to each its own I guess.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Agree to disagree.

Shot clocks, timing rules, time out rules. All determine whether a game played by kids will be more or less - athlete centered or coach/product centered.

I can have a sports car that's not broke, but it might not be the best choice when my life changes and i'm taking 3 kids and dog on family vacations. Nothing wrong with sports cars or mini vans its about your priorities.

I'm not debating whether one is better or worse.

The reality is rules that increase possessions, increase required skill development, decrease coach control all drastically alter the athlete experience with the game and make it more about their experience, their abilities, their decision making. If you think a game played by kids should be more about and driven by them - taking away coach controls and increasing pace of play and number of possessions does that.

If you think having a product about wins/losses and coaches controlling programs, programs controlling leagues and coaches having more control over what all these products/results/players look like is the priority then you are good as is.

Philosophical differences and rules that change the nature of the way game is coached, played and alters both player and coach experience are not gimmicks and shouldn't be dismissed as such.

That is what I want, a game that is more player-centered than coach-centered. As an official, it is easier for me in a player-centered game, because I can focus more on playcalling than on having to talk to the coaches and policing their behavior. In my experience, coaches tend to misbehave more than players do, so minimizing interactions between coaches and officials is better for my sanity as well. This is the reason why college basketball, even though its rules committee is dominated by coaches, has the rules and mechanics it does (shot clock, only players call live-ball timeouts, officials go opposite the table after reporting fouls, to avoid confrontations with coaches).

This is why I prefer rules that give players more control over the game, as opposed to coaches. Having to divide my attention between action on the court and benches affects my ability to properly call the plays in front of me, especially when i have to verify that it is the HEAD coach calling the timeout, that there is player control, etc. In the time that takes, there might have been a foul, a score, a violation, or something else, and then for me to take that away and call the timeout leaves me looking like a doofus. If only players can call live-ball timeouts, my job is easier, because I can see which player called the timeout, and verify that he has control of the ball while officiating him and the on-ball defender. A shot clock is also better, because it is an objective instrument to measure possessions, rather than the 5-second count, which is arbitrary, and depends on an official's interpretation of 6 feet, a team's defensive strategy, the official's mood, etc. It also gives more control to the players, because it requires them to stay engaged and try to play offense and defense for the entire game. As an official, the shot clock makes my job easier, because it keeps me aware of the time in the game, it gives me a read on the 10-second count (whether a visible proxy to the 10-second count (possession was obtained at 29, so violation will be at 19), or the official 10-second count), and it may allow me to not worry as much about closely guarded counts, depending on the rule set. If I don't have to worry about a visible 10-second count, I can get a wider angle for officiating transition, and pick up more plays than just the ball handler as Trail, assist with the 10-second count while picking up additional plays as the Center official, or be more situation-aware as the Lead while moving to position with the 1st wave of players. Finally, I like the shot clock, because it reduces the occurrence of the stall-and-foul strategy at the end of games (aggressive fouling on defense only happens in shot clock games near the time when the shot clock turns off, and if the defensive team needs more possessions than the number of possessions that remain). This reduction in the stall-and-foul strategy does not force me to alter my judgement on contact in the final minutes by calling fouls that would be marginal at best at other times of the game, and does not require me to make as many snap decisions between common or intentional fouls that many officials refuse to make in accordance with the rules, despite repeated points of emphasis from the NFHS about calling intentional fouls in the final minutes of games. The shot clock also rewards players for proper offensive and defensive play, rebounding, and punishes then for fouls, so it is a good way for players to learn how to play basketball better from natural, in-game consequences. The restricted area is a safety rule (by requiring players who take charges to be outside the basket, it affords offensive players more of an opportunity to stop before contact, reducing injuries to offensive and defensive players from crashing in close proximity to the basket), and as such, it can benefit the game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is what I want, a game that is more player-centered than coach-centered. As an official, it is easier for me in a player-centered game, because I can focus more on playcalling than on having to talk to the coaches and policing their behavior. In my experience, coaches tend to misbehave more than players do, so minimizing interactions between coaches and officials is better for my sanity as well. This is the reason why college basketball, even though its rules committee is dominated by coaches, has the rules and mechanics it does (shot clock, only players call live-ball timeouts, officials go opposite the table after reporting fouls, to avoid confrontations with coaches).

I can tell you do not work college basketball because college coaches control everything at that level. As a matter of fact, based on what you said, college basketball is not for you either. Only the NBA and that takes a tremendous amount of being more than a play-caller to become one of those in today's era. You either have to have the look and the demeanor or you will not be there at all.

Also if you think the more you worry about play-calling is what will help you, then you are in for a rude awakening when you or if you ever get to those levels. Play-calling is a small part of that battle. You better learn how to deal with people and situations more so than calling a block-charge. I am not talking about what happens at the Division 1 level either. NAIA has a lot of challenges that you will never see at the high school level for example from coaches and even players. Actually, players do not say as much at the college level because they are heavily in the control of the coaches. If they act up the coach will not play them or remove them from the team. The coaches essentially pick them or give them an opportunity and the players are well aware of that in most cases.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is why I prefer rules that give players more control over the game, as opposed to coaches. Having to divide my attention between action on the court and benches affects my ability to properly call the plays in front of me, especially when i have to verify that it is the HEAD coach calling the timeout, that there is player control, etc. In the time that takes, there might have been a foul, a score, a violation, or something else, and then for me to take that away and call the timeout leaves me looking like a doofus. If only players can call live-ball timeouts, my job is easier, because I can see which player called the timeout, and verify that he has control of the ball while officiating him and the on-ball defender. A shot clock is also better, because it is an objective instrument to measure possessions, rather than the 5-second count, which is arbitrary, and depends on an official's interpretation of 6 feet, a team's defensive strategy, the official's mood, etc. It also gives more control to the players, because it requires them to stay engaged and try to play offense and defense for the entire game. As an official, the shot clock makes my job easier, because it keeps me aware of the time in the game, it gives me a read on the 10-second count (whether a visible proxy to the 10-second count (possession was obtained at 29, so violation will be at 19), or the official 10-second count), and it may allow me to not worry as much about closely guarded counts, depending on the rule set. If I don't have to worry about a visible 10-second count, I can get a wider angle for officiating transition, and pick up more plays than just the ball handler as Trail, assist with the 10-second count while picking up additional plays as the Center official, or be more situation-aware as the Lead while moving to position with the 1st wave of players. Finally, I like the shot clock, because it reduces the occurrence of the stall-and-foul strategy at the end of games (aggressive fouling on defense only happens in shot clock games near the time when the shot clock turns off, and if the defensive team needs more possessions than the number of possessions that remain). This reduction in the stall-and-foul strategy does not force me to alter my judgement on contact in the final minutes by calling fouls that would be marginal at best at other times of the game, and does not require me to make as many snap decisions between common or intentional fouls that many officials refuse to make in accordance with the rules, despite repeated points of emphasis from the NFHS about calling intentional fouls in the final minutes of games. The shot clock also rewards players for proper offensive and defensive play, rebounding, and punishes then for fouls, so it is a good way for players to learn how to play basketball better from natural, in-game consequences. The restricted area is a safety rule (by requiring players who take charges to be outside the basket, it affords offensive players more of an opportunity to stop before contact, reducing injuries to offensive and defensive players from crashing in close proximity to the basket), and as such, it can benefit the game.

I just came back from 3 weeks of camping for college-level evaluators. I can tell you that they talked very little overall about play calling. Clinicians talked about our demeanor, our teamwork, who actually made the call, how we handled a coach. They even talked about our fitness and positioning, even when the ball was not live. They did not spend a lot of time on play calling or if we got that block-charge right. They talked about whistle cadence and why did you even have a call at all on that play? Those are not the issues you stated that you want to worry about. You always make it sound like there are no issues what so ever at the other levels about how they handle rules or things that you call arbitrary like 5 seconds (which still applies at the NCAA level) or post play which has rules about where and when you can make contact with your armbar and how much pressure is being put on the ball handler. All additional things you have to think about when officiating that level of game. You act like these are something that never come into play but for a few rules differences.

Peace

[Rich]

I find it amusing that there are those who say they are "athlete-centered" or "player-centered" - this is a game played by teenagers as part of the educational experience.

I have yet to hear anyone ever say that they wish math class was more learner-centered.

When you read between the lines, most people who want a shot clock do so because it eliminates those contests where a smart coach figures out how to suck the air out of a game in order to compete with a more talented team. And what, exactly, is wrong with that? It's a great life lesson when kids realize that having the most physical talent isn't the only thing that goes into making a great team.

Frankly, it takes a lot more feel for the game to officiate it as it is now. What some on this thread seem to advocate for is to reduce or eliminate the amount of judgment we have to make -- to take some of the art out of officiating in favor of more science.

And my first reaction to that is that maybe some of those officials just aren't that good at the art of calling a game and want to make it easier on themselves.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is what I want, a game that is more player-centered than coach-centered. As an official, it is easier for me in a player-centered game, because I can focus more on playcalling than on having to talk to the coaches and policing their behavior.

Yes, coaches can be distracting, especially if you let them. No matter what level, no matter what rule set, if there's a coach involved, an official will have to deal with the coach.

Don't want to deal with a coach? Officiate tennis. Sit in the high chair at Wimbledon.

And what's wrong with coaches coaching kids? They're high school kids, not young adults. They need adult guidance. They need adult direction. They need adult supervision. That's how they learn. In algebra class. In physics class. In woodworking class. In drivers education. In marching band. And on the basketball court, or the football field, or the softball diamond. It's high school, kids are there to learn. It's not a low level, minor league, miniature, junior version of the NBA, or the WNBA.

Yes, there was a certain charm about playing playground basketball, baseball, football, and hockey back when I was a kid. No adults involved. No coaches. No officials. We "scheduled" the games, set up the fields, made our own teams, made our own rules, enforced those rules, learned how to play the sport, got hurt, had some fights, but eventually learned how to settle disagreements, and learned how cooperate with each other, and have fun.

Yes, there were valuable life lessons learned, but is this what we want our high school sports to look like?

Just toss the ball out onto the floor and say, "Have at it", like our substitute physical education teachers said in high school.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never thought this would be a problem until this past season. Had a team with white jerseys and white numbers surrounded by a thin, light gray border. Really stupid looking. I'm not saying that it was super difficult to read the numbers, but I will say that it wasn't super easy.

When I read this change, I chuckled - a few years ago on this very forum, I was told I had bigger issues that I couldn’t see a number.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...y-numbers.html

I guess my political pull in Indy got this approved. Thanks to all
the naysayers!!😂😂

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by packersowner

When I read this change, I chuckled, a few years ago on this very forum ... got this approved

I've always known that the Forum is being fully monitored, all the time, by the NFHS and the Russians.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by packersowner

When I read this change, I chuckled - a few years ago on this very forum, I was told I had bigger issues that I couldn’t see a number.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It appears to be a "2."

Would you bet the farm that the player's number is not a twenty-one with a fold over the one?

Not just a few bucks, the whole farm, including the back forty, and the family cemetery behind the chicken coop.

Seems to be a very minor issue, mostly in girls games. I guess many girls like a "bloused" jersey, one size too big?

I make this mistake once or twice every year, always in girls games (where I also occasionally get a long ponytail hiding a back of jersey number).

Yeah, that's what we really need, NFHS rules that say that players must wear proper sized uniforms.

And no more long ponytails.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Would you bet the farm that the player's number is not a twenty-one with a fold over the one?

If it were a 21, it wouldn't be because of the colors that you couldn't see it.

This is a wholly unnecessary change. As long as the colors are actually contrasting and the borders sufficiently sized, anyone short of Ray Charles should be able to see them.