Rule Change Proposals

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are we really struggling to know who is on the court and what team they play for?

Good question. And this is the purpose (other than safety, and a few other things) of most of the equipment rules, to easily identify players on each team

The NFHS needs to find a "happy medium".

On one side of the spectrum one could find overly strict complex rules that are difficult for players, coaches, and some officials, to understand, and for some officials to enforce, but make it extremely easy to identify teams, probably beyond what officials need to easily and effectively officiate the game of basketball. Or even simple rules that are extremely strict, like all forms of equipment having the same color as the jersey. Is an extremely strict rule like this necessary for officials to easily and effectively officiate the game of basketball?

On the other side of the spectrum one could find extremely relaxed rules that are quite easy for players, coaches, and officials, to understand, and for all officials to enforce, but make it possibly somewhat difficult to identify teams during fast paced action, especially crowded rebounding situations, making officials possibly somewhat less effective, and making it possibly somewhat more difficult, to officiate the game of basketball.

Has the NFHS found the middle of the spectrum balance point? Easy to understand? Easy to enforce? Easy to identify players on each team? In my opinion, no, no, no, yes.

The NFHS should keep the current uniform (jerseys, colors, numbers) rules in place, and keep the current undershirt rules (white or jersey color) in place (as an extension of the jersey), and simplify, or eliminate, the other equipment rules regarding headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves, knee pads, elbow pads, compression shorts, and tights.

My opinion: Headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, elbow pads? Little change. Simplify. Three (down from four) color choices (black, white, jersey color), all the same for a player, all the same for the team. Or, if desired, eliminate such rules completely (if one doesn't mind being the ringmaster at the circus).

My opinion: Knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves, knee pads, compression shorts, and tights? No rules. Ignore (like shoes and socks).

I don't believe that by ignoring everything from the waist down will make it significantly more difficult to easily identify players on each team.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... simplify, or eliminate ...

The pendulum is on the way, be it slowly, back to center. Over the past several years the NFHS has, in my opinion, made some good common sense decisions regarding uniforms and equipment. Allowing tights. Compression shorts don't have to be the same color as the uniform shorts. Eliminated "school color" equipment language. Allowing "volleyball width" headbands for basketball. Allowing rolled waistbands. White instead of "light" color home jerseys. Jersey number can't be the same color as the jersey (2024-25).

Maybe the NFHS will allow the pendulum to keep swinging. Let's hope.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Over the past several years the NFHS has made some good common sense decisions regarding uniforms and equipment.

Not saying that I've agreed with all recent NFHS decisions regarding equipment: Headbands not allowed to have tails. Clarified ribbons illegal as a hair control device.

Both decisions, especially the first, make my job more difficult.

[Camron Rust]

Found out that my rule change proposals didn't make the NFHS list because my state office Rep didn't forward them on in time. :/

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Found out that my rule change proposals didn't make the NFHS list because my state office Rep didn't forward them on in time. :/

Admin T for failing to submit roster on time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Found out that my rule change proposals didn't make the NFHS list because my state office Rep didn't forward them on in time.

Do you know what changes are on the agenda at the NFHS Rule Committee ?

Or is this one of those ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do you know what changes are on the agenda at the NFHS Rule Committee ?

Here is the list (paraphrased/abbreviated....too long to paste in here):

1. Stop the clock under a minute.
2. Shot clock (a) nationally or (b) by state adoption
3. Uniform color...dark must be dark
4 & 5. religious head covering regulations without needing state approval
6. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter
7. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter (similar to #6 but different wording by different propoent)
8. Bonus at 6th foul in a quarter, automatic bonus at 8th foul in a quarter
9. New definition of a simultaneous multiple foul...two fouls by same team against different opposing players
10. No jump ball in OT...continue AP.
11. Remove coaches ability to be granted a timeout during a live ball...must be by a player.
12. On a double foul where one foul is of a greater severity than the other, possession to team offended by greater foul.
13. Eliminate player control signal...use only team control signal

[BillyMac]

Thanks Camron Rust.

1. Stop the clock under a minute.
No. More chances for clock mistakes in important situations. Many games below the varsity level (especially middle schools) are timed by inexperienced adults, or students.

2. Shot clock (a) nationally or (b) by state adoption
I assume that either is an option, not mandatory. Many games below the varsity level are timed by inexperienced adults, or students. Connecticut already uses a shot clock for varsity prep school games and we always have problems.

3. Uniform color...dark must be dark
Odd change. Rules already state white for the home team and a contrasting dark color for the visiting team.

4 & 5. religious head covering regulations without needing state approval
Yes. Here in Connecticut we currently allow this and then subsequently suggest that the team get state approval after the game. No officials in Connecticut currently will not allow a player to participate because of religion unless there is a real safety issue.

6. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter
No. Doubles the chances for certain types of correctable errors. Many games below the varsity level (especially middle schools) are scored by inexperienced adults, or students; and many middle school scoreboards don't show team fouls.

7. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter (similar to #6 but different wording by different proponent)
No. Doubles the chances for certain types of correctable errors. Many games below the varsity level (especially middle schools) are scored by inexperienced adults, or students; and many middle school scoreboards don't show team fouls.

8. Bonus at 6th foul in a quarter, automatic bonus at 8th foul in a quarter
No. Doubles the chances for certain types of correctable errors. Many games below the varsity level (especially middle schools) are scored by inexperienced adults, or students; and many middle school scoreboards don't show team fouls.

9. New definition of a simultaneous multiple foul...two fouls by same team against different opposing players
Probably needed, or they wouldn't consider it.

10. No jump ball in OT...continue AP.
Yes. The beginning of the end of the jump ball. Hey Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. How do you like them apples?

11. Remove coaches ability to be granted a timeout during a live ball...must be by a player.
Yes. Saves a lot of problems where players are scrambling on the floor to get control of a ball, usually right before a probable held ball, where officials should be concentrating on the physicality of the players involved, not having to identify the voice of the head coach. One less thing officials have to worry about in these, and similar tense situations.

12. On a double foul where one foul is of a greater severity than the other, possession to team offended by greater foul.
No. Not needed. But I would be open to a discussion of "fairness".

13. Eliminate player control signal...use only team control signal
Yes. Here in my little corner of Connecticut we currently have more player control foul signals than Carter has Little Liver Pills.

And those are my opinions ...

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here is the list (paraphrased/abbreviated....too long to paste in here):

1. Stop the clock under a minute.
2. Shot clock (a) nationally or (b) by state adoption
3. Uniform color...dark must be dark
4 & 5. religious head covering regulations without needing state approval
6. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter
7. 2 shots starting at 5th foul in each quarter (similar to #6 but different wording by different propoent)
8. Bonus at 6th foul in a quarter, automatic bonus at 8th foul in a quarter
9. New definition of a simultaneous multiple foul...two fouls by same team against different opposing players
10. No jump ball in OT...continue AP.
11. Remove coaches ability to be granted a timeout during a live ball...must be by a player.
12. On a double foul where one foul is of a greater severity than the other, possession to team offended by greater foul.
13. Eliminate player control signal...use only team control signal

1. Yes. It eliminates the potential for clock-related tomfoolery (e.g. the winning team "helping" the old Lead official by passing the ball to him after a score) near the end of the game, especially a close game. I had to give a technical foul to a player late in a tournament game because he was in the way of an opponent trying to get to the ball for a throw-in, and wouldn't listen when I told him to knock it off. This would not happen under the proposed rule.
2. I would agree with a) if there is a phase-in period (GA is currently phasing the shot clock in, and will allow it to be used in regular season play starting this upcoming season (2021-22). It will be mandatory next season (2022-23) for regular and postseason varsity games). I would agree with b), because each state should be able to figure out an equitable way to adopt the shot clock.
3. No.
4 and 5, sure as long as there is no safety issue.
6. If the one-and-one is eliminated, absolutely.
7. Same as above.
8. No
9. Yes
10. No
11-13 Yes