2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

So if player has their hair in a bun. One or two hair restraint devices around the top knot to keep it secure. Then takes a roll of pre wrap. Wraps a piece around their head and ties it off then rolls it up into and through their hairline to trap bangs, fly away hair from lower in bun (because layering is thing). Is that a head band they've pushed up into their hair or a hair control device holding some of the hair their other hair control device doesn't that happens to go around their head?

Way above my pay grade.

Ask Warren Beatty (Young'uns can check out "Warren Beatty Shampoo" on the Google, or Carly Simon You're So Vain" on the You Tube).

[LRZ]

Billy, please set yourself some posting limit per day.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Billy, please set yourself some posting limit per day.

I could have replied to Pantherdreams seriously, or facetiously.

I guess that I chose poorly (apologies to the Grail Knight).

Fashion issues are often decided on the local and/or state level.

What Ms. Wynns says about headbands and hair control devices (hair-control device goes around the hair only, while a headband goes around the entire head) may, or may not, mean anything on the local and/or state level.

[ilyazhito]

This is stupid. The NFHS Rules Committee just wastes its time with hair control devices and uniforms, yet is not willing to implement any rules changes that might actually affect gameplay. It's a pity that they don't have anything at the high school level where experimental rules can be implemented, like the NIT. If there was, they could playtest the restricted area, shot clock, and other proposed rules changes before having the committee vote on them. That way, the committee would actually have an idea of what they are voting on, and why they want to vote for or against, not just MUH NOSTALGIA, or Ain't spending nothing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is stupid. The NFHS Rules Committee just wastes its time with hair control devices and uniforms, yet is not willing to implement any rules changes that might actually affect gameplay. It's a pity that they don't have anything at the high school level where experimental rules can be implemented, like the NIT. If there was, they could playtest the restricted area, shot clock, and other proposed rules changes before having the committee vote on them. That way, the committee would actually have an idea of what they are voting on, and why they want to vote for or against, not just MUH NOSTALGIA, or Ain't spending nothing.

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

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not broke, so why fix it?

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

Agree. Worked with a shot clock in RI this year, probably about 45 games’ worth. I think I had three shot clock violations all season. Seriously, it’s the dumbest thing for HS basketball. The kids just want to shoot their threes and drive to the basket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

[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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is stupid. The NFHS Rules Committee just wastes its time with hair control devices and uniforms, yet is not willing to implement any rules changes that might actually affect gameplay. It's a pity that they don't have anything at the high school level where experimental rules can be implemented, like the NIT. If there was, they could playtest the restricted area, shot clock, and other proposed rules changes before having the committee vote on them. That way, the committee would actually have an idea of what they are voting on, and why they want to vote for or against, not just MUH NOSTALGIA, or Ain't spending nothing.

I will concede that FED spends far too much time debating and implementing fashion police stuff rather than sensible changes to gameplay that most people would be on board with.

But I have yet to see a fact-based argument for shot clock/RA in high school other than "the higher levels do it." Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I will concede that FED spends far too much time debating and implementing fashion police stuff ...

As long as the direction of the NFHS continues to be toward simplification, modernization, and ease of enforcement (rolled shorts allowed, headbands like those allowed in volleyball, any color for hair control devices) of fashion issues, then I say, "Full speed ahead".

Or, as I screamed to my brother-in-law as he was driving me to the hospital emergency room on an early Sunday morning for one of my kidney stone attacks, "Go through the red lights. Faster. Faster. Faster".

[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.