2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
 

Not much to write home about. I guess we have to see what those adornment and hair rules involve.

Peace

Hair Adornments Made Of Hard Material ...
 

Bobby pins? Barrettes? Beads?

Beads attached to the ends of very long braids? How close to the head?

Hair adornments made of soft material? Ribbons?

Color restrictions?

2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rule Changes ...
 

2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rule Changes

May 03, 2022

The allowance of hair adornments made of hard material has been clarified in high school basketball. Adornments made of hard material are permitted provided they are securely fastened close to the head and do not present an increased risk to the player, teammates or opponents.

This change to Rule 3-5-4d was approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Basketball Rules Committee at its annual meeting April 11-13 in Indianapolis. The recommendation was subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The committee adjusted the rule to be inclusive of hair styles while maintaining that the risk of injury to the athlete and others not be compromised.

“It was extremely important to the rules committee to create rules language that supported diversity of hair trends while minimizing the risk of injury to the athlete, teammates and opponents,” said Lindsey Atkinson, director of sports and liaison to the Basketball Rules Committee. “Creating educational tools through case plays and the annual NFHS Basketball Rules PowerPoint will be the focus of the committee.”

Adjustments were also made to the Shot Clock Guidelines in the Basketball Rules Book as states begin to implement its use by state association adoption this season. The committee reiterated that the Shot Clock Guidelines are strongly suggested, but not required.

In addition, the Shot Clock Guidelines were simplified to suggest a full reset of the shot clock after a ball is intentionally kicked or fisted. However, states may choose to institute a partial reset in these instances, if desired.

According to the latest updates, four states have adopted full use of the shot clock since last year’s rules changes: Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Utah. Three others have adopted it for limited use: Nebraska, South Carolina and Florida. Ten state associations previously had implemented or approved a shot clock prior to the NFHS rule change: California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington and the District of Columbia. Idaho has tentatively approved a shot clock with a second vote coming in June.

The Basketball Rules Committee identified three points of emphasis for the upcoming season, including promoting good sportsmanship. The points also focus on reducing illegal contact in post-play, off-ball play and through hand checks. The third point of emphasis reminds officials to first address illegal uniforms, equipment and apparel directly with the head coach and not players.

I would rather wait until this is specified because it is possible those are not what they are talking about. Also, many players that are African-American or of African decent wear things in their hair that is part of their hairstyle that is not these things. So I am wondering if this is kind of what they are addressing, but that is an assumption. Just a trend with some laws that used to kind of outlaw certain hairstyles and now that is becoming a norm.

Peace

Just Thinking Out Loud ...
 

Note all my question marks.

Ten Seconds ...
 

Wonder if the NFHS will broach and clarify the difference between the actual ten second rule (start count at possession) and the shot clock guidelines posted last year (use shot clock to count ten seconds, starting count at touch)?

Fun In The Layup Line ...
 

Instead of, "You can't play with those earrings", we have to say, "She can't play with those earrings".

Odd?

Not sure what you mean by "odd?".

I've been addressing HCs or ACs with those types of issues since I can't remember when.

Of Course, As Usual, When In Rome ...
 

For me, only if the player gives me a problem will I go to the head coach.

95% of the time, it's me watching the layup lines, spotting a jewelry, undershirt, headband, sleeve, etc., issue, and saying something directly to the player, who usually complies. That's the way everybody here in my little corner of Connecticut has been doing it for over forty years.

Can't wait to discover why the NFHS thinks it's wrong to say, "You can't play with those earrings".

I believe the idea is that illegal uniforms/apparel are first and foremost the HC's responsibility. Same reason that playing with an illegal uniform has been a direct TF to the coach since 2008. (I don't miss the days of starting the game with ten free throws.)

In track and field, we've been doing this for a few years now.

You want to pole vault with stud earings...have at it.
You want to pole vault with big hoops that have the potential of getting caught in the landing system and ripping your ear apart...I have no intention of letting that athlete compete while wearing those earrings.

Pregame Meeting ...
 

Sounds plausible.

2-4-5: The referee must: Verify with the head coach, prior to each contest, that his/her team member’s uniforms and equipment are legal and will be worn properly, and that all participants will exhibit proper sporting behavior throughout the contest.

It's more than plausible, it's what makes sense. Instead of dealing with individuals, you deal with a single person in authority over all the individuals.

"Coach, your players cannot participate with earrings"

"Huh? Who has on earrings?"

"For example, the player grabbing the rebound right now in the lay-up line"

"Thanks, we'll take care of it"

As opposed to:

"Why are you sending my player back to the bench?"

"I told him during warm-ups he couldn't play with earrings"

Point Of Emphasis ...
 

Sounds like something the NFHS would say. I bet that Raymond turns out to be correct.

I will go to the player and let them know what rules apply. Give them a chance to correct it. But I still go to the coach to tell them what is going to happen moving forward. Sometimes talking to the player can help you know what they have on, instead of assuming. I have seen things players wear and only was able to find out by talking to the player. Coaches often have a buffer of not knowing which does not tell you the entire story. But that is just me.

Peace

Worst Case Scenario ...
 

I'm really pushing the limits here. Won't happen in a billion games, but if it did it would be in mine.

I spot a player with earrings in a three on two half court pregame drill. I make my way over to discuss with the coach, per the point of emphasis, and the coach heads over to discuss with the player. During that ten second interval, an earring get ripped out.

Next game, as I come out onto the court a stranger shows up with a subpoena and says, "BillyMac, you are served. Risk of injury to a minor for allowing a player to continue to warm up while wearing an earring, clearly against the rules and interpretations as written". Coach is also served.

Of course, I can just whip out my 2022-23 NFHS Rulebook (books that my local board will not be giving to us next year as a cost cutting measure) and be ready to show the point of emphasis to the judge.

Of course, this will never happen. Just a fairy tale to scare kids.

Keep The Coach In The Loop ...
 

I will mention this in my pregame meeting. "We already had a problem with an earring (or whatever), but we already took care of it".

It is a waste of time to say it there IMO. I say it to a player usually in the layup line and then I approach the coach quietly before the game. Usually solves or addresses the issue directly. Both hear it from the crew and we move on. But again we all have our process. Not only one way to skin a cat.

Peace

Timing ...
 

Note: I know more about black hole singularities than I know about track and field rules.

Spot the earring just before a vault? Tell the vaulter right away that there will be no vault with an earring, or don't say a word (not even, "Wait") to the vaulter and go and find the head coach, who may be nowhere near the vaulting area, but is out behind the bleachers in the discus area?

Who is the plaintiff, the parent who allowed has their child to wear the earrings in the first place?

Questions ...
 

3-7: The referee must not permit any team member to participate if in his/her judgment any item constitutes a safety concern, such as, but not limited to, a player’s fingernails or hairstyle.

Could earrings be considered a safety concern? Do team members participating include pregame warmups? Should an official allow a team member with earrings continue to warmup while the official walks to the other side of the court (across both the division line and the basket line) to discuss the infraction with the head coach?

One Upon A Time ...
 

In the fairy tale, the evil step-parents would be suing on behalf of their dim-witted naughty minor child.

Better yet? Let the dim-witted naughty child, who also traded the family cow for magic beans, sue everybody, including the dim-witted permissive parents who live in a shoe.

Bring the case before Judge Judy. Better yet? Steve Harvey.

Equipment ...
 

Instead of fairy tales, let's get back to the real world.

Illegal uniforms, equipment and apparel may not include safety concerns like earrings. Are earrings even considered equipment?

We allow kids to take pregame layups with a wrong color undershirt, or a wrong color headband, or with a number six jersey. They can warmup, they just can't play.

A hard cast on a wrist may be considered equipment, but it's also a safety issue that needs to be dealt with immediately.

Identical Numbers ...
 

Is this true? What if one never plays but just sits on the bench the entire game?

3-2-2-E: After the 10-minute time limit … a team is charged with a maximum of one technical foul regardless of how many infractions of the following are committed: Having identical numbers on team members and/or players.

10-1-2-E: A team must not: Have identical numbers on team members and/or players.

3.2.2 SITUATION B: Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: (b) two Team B team members are wearing the same number. RULING: In (b), a technical foul is charged to Team B upon discovery of the identical numbers. Only one team member may wear a given number; the other must change to a number not already in use before participating. (10-1-2)

3.3.7 SITUATION A: COMMENT: … identical numbers shall not be allowed on the same team.

Does one number twenty-one have to stop warming up ten minutes before the game starts?

Can he sit on the bench if his name and number isn't listed in the scorebook?

4-34-4: A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

Coach says that he's not eligible (for some unnamed reason, could be grades, behavior, state limitations for periods played, etc.) to become a player.

Layup Lines ...
 

And who's allowed in the pregame layup lines?

Team managers not in uniform?

Team mascot?

Uniformed "players" from the prior, or later, game?

Enquiring minds want to know, especially if there's a safety concern, or if they dunk.

Non-Eligible Identical Number ???
 

I would never allow identical numbers in the scorebook, or becoming players, and would penalize with a team technical foul if it was discovered, but I'm unsure about a non-eligible identical number warming up pregame, or sitting on the bench?

I do not know if we allow anything. There are many games where players have warmups and T-shirts over their jerseys and we often do not see any such sleeves or undershirts until the game starts. And if you have players that are not in the initial starting line-up, we might not see them until they get onto the floor for the first time, several minutes after the game has started. So unless we require everyone to remove warm-up, this is not going to solve that issue. And I am not for telling players to remove stuff just because of this issue.

Peace

Pre-Approval ...
 

Though not stated, I was referring to those uniform, equipment, and apparel infractions that we can actually and easily see.

To JRutledge's point regarding "hidden" infractions, I fully agree with him. Catch them when they finally take off their warmups to start, or when they report to the table to substitute.

No "pre-approval" needed. That would be a serious case of being an overly officious official, and could lead to ridicule at Friday night post game adult beverage meetings at the usual local gin joints.

From NFHS ...
 

Actual Rule verbiage and Casebook/Rules Interpretations.
 

I agree with Jeff and Bill. We will have to wait until the actual NFHS Rules and Casebook/Rules Interpretations are published in October 2022. Then I will get on my soap box, LOL!

MTD, Sr.

My gut tells me that any and all guidance from the NFHS will have NCAA Men's/Women's written all over it. Jeff and Bob (Jenkins), what do you think?

MTD, Sr.

Didn't the NF specifically put something out to suggest that the shot clock would be used as the 10-second count? If that is the case then I would expect the touch to be the start similar to what the NCAA does.

Shot Clock Guidelines from NF

Listed in this document.

When my organs are getting donated to scientific studies, HS refs will still be making excuses for why they allow ballhandlers to get manhandled all over the court..."it's soft", "they have to play through it", etc.

Fish Or Cut Bait ...
 

NFHS shot clock ten second rule says "touch" while NFHS stand-alone ten second rule remains unchanged and still says "possession".

One, or the other, has to be changed.

Or, perhaps the NFHS will leave it up to shot clock states to decide?

I think it only makes sense for the shot clock. Otherwise leave it alone. If you are not using the shot clock then there is no reason to muddy the water with when a 10-second count starts. But neither state has adopted such rule so it is not relevant to me at this point.

Peace

One Universal Scholastic Ten Second Rule ...
 

I, for one, believe that it muddies the water to have two different ten second rules, one for scholastic games with a shot clock, and one for scholastic games with no shot clock, especially for those states that may not have shot clocks across all scholastic levels (high school varsity, junior varsity, freshman, and middle school).

The NFHS should simply change the ten second language to "touch" to align with the existing shot clock language, or change the shot clock language to "possession" to align with the existing ten second language.

I don't care which they choose, just do it to have one universal scholastic ten second rule. Doesn't have to be the same as NCAA, NBA, FIBA, etc. It ain't rocket science.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=240&h=176

Almost all my high school games are played with teams and schools in the very same state of each other. So not sure it matters what another state might do if they use a shot clock and the other does not use a shot clock. The shot clock in itself is a complete change, so who cares what the 10 second count is if you are not using the same basic rule. At this point neither of my states are using the shot clock, though that might change. But the shot clock has a clock on the basket or near the court, so there is no reason to be a prisoner of a visible count.

Peace

Slow Hand (The Pointer Sisters, 1981) ...
 

Using the shot clock for a ten second count would certainly take care of the issue of "slow counters" and "fast counters", especially in situations with a backcourt inbounds after stopped clock (made free throw, or timeout) where coaches and fans can easily cite evidence to support their case to criticize.

That, is why I try to sync my visible count to the game clock, when I am required to show a visible count. If I start my count at 1:21, and the ball is still in the backcourt at 1:10, with no intervening stoppage, there definitely is a violation.

Accurate Count ...
 

While I don't frequently do this, I will do this several times over a season to see if my count is accurate. Always a few times in preseason scrimmages.

If you're in a state where you are not supposed to use the shot clock for a ten second count (must show "visible" count), or in a state where there is no shot clock, just be sure you've "visibly" counted ten times before sounding a whistle at 1:10 (or whatever time). While a coach certainly can't argue about your timing accuracy, he could argue about the number of "visible" counts, "I only saw eight visible counts, so I didn't request a timeout". While I've never hear this argument in regard to a ten second rule (it's a weak argument), I have heard it in regard to a five second closely guarded rule. And in the twenty-first century, all coaches have videos of "visible" counts to back them up.

I’m not stopping the clock for that, if the dribbler can continue without loss of possession or some other significant disadvantage.

The game fees at the HS level simply aren’t enough to warrant a 90-minute or two-hour game. Get in, get finished, get out.

Referees will complain about how sloppy a game was oblivious to the fact they allowed so much physicality on the ball handlers, leading to turnovers. Or wonder why a player dribbled into a trap, ignoring that the defender literally pushed the dribbler in that direction.

The lower the athleticism and/or skill, the more we need whistles on those plays.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yep. The game goes so much smoother and is more entertaining once you stop letting defenders get away with so much that should be a foul. Fouls eventually come back down, scoring goes up, and the ball moves more quickly.

I agree. That is why I try to be consistent and rigorous on calling freedom of movement fouls. I call two hands and stayed hands frequently.

In the DC area, 90 minute games are the average, particularly at the varsity level.

Ugh, around a 65 minute average for me. I’m showered and driving home before you start the fourth quarter.

All you have to do is call one or two and they usually stop. Most of the time I call a handchecking foul, and the coach gets on the player for not using their hands. So it usually does not warrant a lot of calls in this area in the first place. Especially when they do it with two hands. Yes, still try to see the effect or the influence of the contact, but call it all the time and it only requires one or two calls from the crew and they get the message.

Peace

All we have to do is call fouls. If the contact (illegal) cause the player to fall, lose the ball, make a bad pass, go out of bounds or make a shot harder, blow the damn whistle.

Peace

Old-Time Religion (1873) ...
 

This sounds like the long held NFHS philosophy based on advantage and disadvantage. It still exists. Of course, it has to be called. Nobody can argue that.

A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

This sounds like the new NFHS philosophy, now actually written into the rulebook.

10-7-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

This is where, sometimes, different officials have different philosophies.

As JRutledge noted, when called early in a game, players and coaches adjust, making for smoother game.

Timing ...
 

If one is going to call a hand check "touch" foul, do it early in the game. Don't call your first "touch" foul with a minute to go in the fourth period of a tied game.

Call these advantage/disadvantage fouls at any time, even if you call your first one with a minute to go in the fourth period of a tied game.

Billy,

Funny, I did not say a damn thing about handchecking as an advantage/disadvantage foul. And 4-27 did not magically go away in the rulebook in the last 10 years either. There is still a standard that all contact is not a foul and when that contact does not directly influence the normal movement of players, it is not illegal or should not be ruled a foul.

The handchecking rules are particular and still have a judgment element to them. Because there are people that think anytime a hand touches a dribbler that is a foul. That is not how the rule is written.

A lot of the contact that Raymond was mentioning was not handchecking fouls. Players are trapped and we allow defenders to crowd or bump into ball handlers with their torso or hit them with their arms which are not handchecking fouls. The NCAA put in a cylinder foul to allow the ball handler some space to move normally. So at least they have that part figured out where we think as NF officials that that kind of contact is OK, just because there is no rule in place.

Peace

Advantage/Disadvantage ...
 

The situations you described in an earlier post certainly describe advantage/disadvantage situations (player falls, player loses ball, player makes a bad pass, player goes out of bounds, player had difficulty shooting). Some could have been caused by handchecking. Some may have been caused by other types of fouls (push, block, etc.).

Many posts previous to your post were specifically aimed at ball handlers, possibly with handchecking, thus I thought you were commenting on those posts, not slightly changing the topic to all illegal contact fouls. I thought ... "poorly".

Judgment ...
 

Judgment does have a role, but multiple points of emphases and a recent rule language change, have taken away some of that judgment.

A single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand? Legal. Single, momentary, touch, and one hand.

Everything else? See 10-7-12 and adjudicate based on what your state, local area, and assigner, want.

10-7-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

My local interpreter and assigner want these "touch" fouls called.

As usual, when in Rome ...

Big Bucks ...
 

Agree that incidental contact is still in the rulebook.

Good officials have to adjudicate based on both 4-27 and 10-7-12.

That's why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

As usual, when in Rome ...

First Shot Across The Bow ...
 

Up until recently, most of our guys only called "touch" handcheck fouls (when there was no obvious advantage gained) when the handchecks were multiple, persistent, and very obvious, often first giving a warning, "Hands off".

Now (since 2014-15), with the exemption of a single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand, our interpreter, and our assigner want these (two hands, extended arm bar, placing and keeping a hand, contacting more than once with the same hand or alternating hands) called (when there was no obvious advantage gained), and we seldom issue warnings, usually the first shot across the bow is a foul called.

That being said, some our local guys, especially some grizzled veterans, still have differing philosophies.

As usual, when in Rome ...

History ...
 

Yeah Billy, sometimes these things happen because they are playing defense and might have nothing to do with their hands. I was not exclusively referencing handchecking. Players bump into each other all the time and often do not use their hands. So if that bump causes the ball handler or non-ball handler to fall, lose their balance or even in some cases go out of bounds, the amount of contact is not relevant, it is the cause of the illegal contact.

Peace

Body Bumping ...
 

Agree.

NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18

Guarding. The addition of rule 10.7.12, has been successful in its intent to clean up illegal contact on the ballhandler/dribbler and post players. Players are attempting to replace this illegal contact with contact observed as “body bumping”. Illegal contact with the body must be ruled a foul however, officials must accurately identify if the defense or offense causes the contact and penalize the player causing the illegal contact.

As the bald old geezer (H.S., Class of 1969) and still "old school".

From the 2010-11 NFHS Points of Emphasis: "Hand checking is a foul and is not incidental contact." That is how it was called when I playing JrHS (1963-64 and 1964-65; and is in my 1963-64 NBC Rules Book. One did not Hand Check in practice unless one wanted to run laps; Hand Checking was considered "lazy defense". Ironically, NAGWS Basketball Rules, the Rules Set for AIAW Basketball before the NCAA took over women's college basketball in 1983-84, specifically allowed Hand Checking, by Rule, because NAGWS Basketball Rules were a mashup of NBC and FIBA Rules, and FIBA allowed Hand Checking.

Time for my pre-dinner nap. I hope that everyone is having a great Summer.

MTD, Sr.

Curious. No modern rule set allows hand checking.

Back to the topic of hand checking, some boards in my area are stricter than others, but I have noticed that it is consistently called. Two hands? We call it. Repeated hot stove touches? I call it. Re-route? If I see it, I call it.

I agree with the basic philosophy that handchecking is not incidental contact. But the problem is that many cannot identify what it is much of the time. Again we have people that think simply touching another player is just that. But the rule uses the word "placing" which to me is a much more active behavior than if someone comes to you and your hand touches them. This is why we get paid the big bucks. We have to decide if the behavior is enough to warrant a foul. And if I put my arm out and you blow right by me, do we need a foul there? So there is a little art to this when it often is sold as a science.

Peace

You can disagree with whether it is necessary or not, but the above is precisely the thinking they were trying to get rid of with the change. They were very clear that they do not want you trying to decide if it is an advantage or not. If a player touches another player with his/her hand in one of the forms described, it is a handchecking foul. It is an advantage by definition in the case of handchecking.

Yet, there continues to be large resistance to this change.

From what I hear, it is not consistently adjudicated in the Catholic League.

Who is trying to get rid of what exactly? I ask because I hear this but I consistently call way more handchecks (partially the philosophy of college officiating as well). So I call them a lot, but I also use some common sense. Not every touch needs to be called when the player is moving and nothing happens. Also, RSBQ is my standard as well and the one the state I work in uses as well if we have a determining factor. This has been stated in our literature multiple times.

Peace

I also called way more hand-checks than other HS officials. And it was b/c of my college training. Even at the JuCo level, there was such an obvious difference from what was routinely allowed at the HS level. Overall, college coaches and players know they can't put their hands and other body parts all over the ballhandlers. College players are coached to move their feet and to beat the offensive player to the spot they're trying to get to. When I had to call illegal contact to the ballhandler in college game it was often quite obvious b/c it would stand out from what defenders were usually doing.

Is there a reason why HS officials routinely allow more contact to the ballhandler/dribbler than college officials?

Simple. Training. (By all involved).

Peace

And acceptance by coaches. And getting coaches to complain if you don't call it instead of complaining when you do.

Because of an old mentality that insists that touches of/by the hand/arm are not an advantage if it doesn't knock a player off balance. That thinking persists and is still pushed and taught in some locales as the way to call things despite the NFHS pleading for officials to leave that thinking behind.

Because there is such a shortage of HS officials that there’s no accountability for them when they swallow the whistle.

Whereas at the college level it is very simple to just scratch a camper off the list when they don’t call 10-1.4 fouls.

Even with that fact, they could still put out videos to highlight what they want and what is not acceptable. You telling me someone could not come up with a video every year with an example of new rules or especially the POEs? They could do that. I get they claim to not have all the resources, but they do not have to make a video out of thin air, work with your state associations to get video example. At least we could have a video reference. Right now we have words that seem to be debated what they mean. The NCAA puts out multiple videos showing why we should call certain things and shows what would not apply. And if they need help, lean on RefQuest or their team or someone that does this regularly (even IAABO). But to do nothing and say we are not calling the game properly is not cutting anymore. We are in a whole different era.

Peace

You can pull out the video all you want but when you have many officials that like the game the old way and choose to call it the old way regardless of what is being asked, there isn't all that much you can do when you don't have the numbers to just not use them.

It is not about an old way of thinking. There are officials that have been officiating after this rule was added, changed or written into the rulebooks. Again, if all you do is put this rule out there and give no context, we will have this as an issue. Again, I am old school enough to know the difference. And I know when to call this because I have been trained on it with video. Just like recognizing flops based on the numerous videos and breakdown of videos to spot them and officiating accordingly. IJS.

Peace

Completely agree. And at the HS level, absent taking away postseason assignments there really is not much you can do about the old guys who still subscribe to the old way of thinking.

Old Habits Die Hard ...
 

Hey. I'm one of those old guys, but I (and my interpreter, and my assigner (also old)) subscribe to 10-7-12 as written, while still using 4-27 for almost all other types of fouls, while also knowing that single, momentary "hot stove" touch with one hand is legal. However, I will admit that I will occasionally give a, "Hands off", warning early in the game before calling my first 10-7-12 handchecking "touch" foul. Old habits die hard.

Playoffs are the big carrot one can use with high school officials. If you can observe officials and give the ones who consistently enforce freedom of movement playoff assignments, the rest will get the message.

On a different note, I can't wait to see how different states will apply the new shot clock guidance by NFHS. In my area, DC has used a non-visible count, but MD had a visible count, even when the shot clock was added for boys basketball for the 2017-18 season. Girls still do not have a 10-second count in MD public school games.

Talking players out of handchecks early in the game is supported by all my college supervisors. But it better be followed up with a whistle if not heeded. At the HS level too often those "warnings" don't get listened to by defenders yet the same officials who give those warnings won't blow the whistle.

Oral Warning ...
 

For me, if I warn, a big if, it's almost always one oral warning per team, per game, and oral warnings seldom, if ever, go past the first period. I've got a whistle, and I know how to use it.

How many of our games are reviewed by the state or association? I doubt there are many games reviewed independently to know if we are doing things correct. Unless you have someone come out and they see you are not doing things a certain way. I think that is a stretch.

Peace

When this rule came in place, I would and still do say "hands, hands, hands" even if the player never touches the ball handler. I say this because at least they know I am watching. I have yet to have a single coach say something to me about doing that or even if they hear me in the first place. But when I do that they often pull their hands back or never touch the ball handler, so it is not something that really has to be called that much. But when they do, I use my judgment and often call fouls on handchecking without much debate from any coaches. It is usually a certain coach or team that seems to not understand the rules that have to take a few fouls to get the message. Most of the time coaches say right after a handchecking foul and sometimes before, "Show your hands."

Peace

That's why I'm going to be performing that duty for my association this season. I'll go to games and I'll also watch whatever I can find online.

But I will not be trying to advise veteran officials things I may have done differently. But I will openly give advice or "things to think about" to newer and younger officials. And I will pass on my favorable impressions to my commissioner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Isn't about how long someone has been officiating, it is just the old way of thinking about what the game should be. They may have that idea from when they played, or just like the idea of no blood, no foul.

Back In the Day ...
 

This, along with differences between NFHS, NCAA, and NBA rule sets, is the main purpose of my Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell ...
 

Even after forty-plus years, when we get to the locker room after a game I always ask my partner, "So did you see anything that could improve my game?".

Chutes and Ladders ...
 

Thank you for your service.

We have an Observation and Mobility Team of about two dozen members. They have all been active on our rule and mechanics training committees, and all are veteran post season experienced officials.

They try to see every official (270 members) on our local board, as partners, or by showing up early and observing junior varsity games. If they have to make more than just a few non-working trips to observe, they don't have to pay annual board dues. Our assistant assignment commissioner is in charge of scheduling these observations.

Those who are observed by members of this Observation and Mobility Team are encouraged to ask team members for constructive criticism at the site.

The Observation and Mobility Team annually meets with our assignment commissioner and assistant commissioner. Determinations are made regarding next year's assignments - all varsity games, all subvarsity games, or an in between "probationary" designation (both varsity games and subvarsity games) for those on their way up the ladder, or on their way down the ladder.

Only the Pope, and Supreme Court justices, are "varsity for life".

But that is not what I am saying. I am not saying allow anything to take place. But in the literature, they said RSBQ is the standard to call these if they are not obvious at least from my state. But again video would help remedy this but that would make too much sense.

Peace

When the rules were changed, the NFHS said RSBQ is no longer the criteria because after years of trying to get people to recognize that RSBQ was actually impacted too many officials were still denying that it was and were not calling the fouls. So, they changed the rules to absolutes based not on RSBQ but observable facts....2 hands = foul, a hand that remains on = foul, multiple touches = foul, etc. RSBQ was no longer to be a factor. Why? Because they have defined those actions to be, by definition, an advantage to the defense even if it doesn't appear to many officials to affect RSBQ.

Some people will still fall back to RSBQ because they don't want to follow the NFHS but the NFHS has clearly indicated they want those fouls called. You don't have to listen to them if your state doesn't want to but that is your state doing its own thing.

Consider this....if putting a hand on the offensive player isn't an advantage to the defender, why would a defender keep doing it as long as you don't call a foul? The do it because it helps then play defense through an illegal advantage gained by the contact.

Go Your Own Way (Fleetwood Mac, 1977) ...
 

Like a lot of things in basketball officiating, it all comes down to what one's state association, local association, interpreters (clinicians, trainers), and assignment commissioners choose to enforce.

When in Rome ...

Even then, there are some grizzled veterans that go their own way.

States come up with their interpretations correct? That is a state interpretation that I am referencing. Not saying something that is not the state and that was specifically used when the rule was put in place and has been used since. I would not be surprised if that was mentioned again since I believe a POE is handchecking. Just like the "hot stove" application, that came from our state office directly. You might not know this, but when they put out the PowerPoint, our state adds or puts in wording to address issues they wish or give interpretations. That did not change here.

Did not fall back into anything, giving you the original interpretation that was provide by the IHSA Administrators. And it did not say those things did not apply, but RSBQ is to be used (and the first time I can remember them even using this for any foul BTW) as a way to judge when these things happen. Still, the rules does not mean you do not have to judge when these things actually happen, because the wording is "placing" which is very specific. The word "touching" is not used because players do touch other players with their hands and arms and are not "placing" their hands on the opponent. Your hands often cannot go anywhere if someone comes into your body. We are not expecting players to put their hands completely behind their back.

I am going to say this again. I do not officiate in a bubble. The NF is not an entirely different place than where I officiate other-level basketball. I do the basic things that I do at the college level when it comes to judgment and philosophies with rules. I call more handchecking fouls than most of my only high school officiating counterparts. And all those things I mentioned I think about when calling a foul.

Peace