here is the link

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...content_id=437

Good changes for the most part.
 

I like the changes.

The only thing I do not like is really the new mechanic (at first glance). I think HS coaches will just use this as a "b!tch" moment and could cause some problems. But all other levels have this, so I think it will not be that bad. Instead of "listening" to your explaination, they might spend more time trying to "tell you," how much you missed the call. I think this is OK at the higher levels, coaches tend to be more respectful and competent. I think some new HS Head Coach thinks we will owe him or her something.

Peace

I only work a few games in Jersey during the summer, so this is not a big deal for me.OK then... :shrug:

BTW Jeff, I use the table side mechanic in all my 3 man HS games and it works fine in my experience. Pretty much similar to my experience at the above HS level. But if my experience is any indication there will be lots of confusion when it comes to deciding exactly what "going table side" actually means in practice, as you probably know yourself from last years mens NCAA 3 man changes.

I like 'em.
 

Thanks PaulK1,
<font size = =3>Udaman!</font>
mick

<FONT COLOR = RED>10-3-7d Expanded rule pertaining to obstructing an opponent’s vision to include the player with the ball. </FONT>

I await the cases.

<font color = red>Signal Chart Illegal use of hands adjusted from an open hand to a closed fist across the arm.</font>

That won't hurt, unlike the hack.

Like Mick I await the cases to obstructing vision rule change. At first look I don't like it...but I will wait to pass final judgement until the books are out.....

Re: I like 'em.
 

Is this really a problem? :confused:

I have no "inherient" problem with going table side. But I think that most HS officials are not capable enough of getting coaches off of them when they have to explain calls.

I was at a meeting tonight with a particular conference. And one of the individuals in attendance is a D1 Official. And his comment was, "now we are going to see who can referee." Because his evaluation of this is that the officials that do not have the "presence" (his word, not mine) are going to get eaten up. And the sign of a good referee is when a coach is not going nuts when an official makes a call. Because either the coach realizes that the official is not having it or they or they are going to try to test them. And he went on to say, for HS the T numbers are going to go up.

It was an interesting conversation.

Peace

Re: Re: I like 'em.
 

Well, I guess....
It must have been broken; that's why they fixed it.

Wave both hands at the ball and block the face?
Only one hand?
How close to the face?
How many times?
Hands not above shoulders?

I await the cases. ;)
mick

Yeah, I hear what you're saying about officals knowing what to say & what not to say. During camps last summer & during my ncaa meetings last fall the thing I heard most from assignors is pretty much in line with what you heard from your D1 guy: going table side will be hard for some guys and the advice was if you were not sure at all what to say just keep your mouth shut. This might be harder for some of the HS guys to get, but the better ones won't have a problem IMO.

It's definitely the most trivial batch of changes in the five years I've been reffing.

But I don't understand this one:

"4-11-1 Clarifies that continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, when there is a foul by any defensive player, not just a defensive foul on the shooter."

Does this mean that the shot is good, if it goes, as long as the foul was during the "continuous motion"? Wasn't that always the rule? Even for a defensive foul away from the ball?

BTW what other kind of foul on the shooter is there, besides defensive?

Juulie,

I think we will not understand many of the rules until the casebooks come out. This was a rather tame year. Not much that really affects the game at least on the surface.

Peace

This is directly from the NFHS website:
"Rule 10-3-7d involves purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing one’s hands near the eyes. While in the past only the person with the ball could be treated in such a manner, this change prohibits any player from purposely obstructing another player’s vision, whether or not he or she has the ball."

Notice that it is not just normal defense, but PURPOSELY obstructing the vision. The hands have to be near the eyes. To me that means right in the face and darn close. I have only seen this happen once in eight years. A player stood behind the ballholder, who was looking to pass at the free throw line, and covered his eyes by reaching around his head without touching him. There was nothing that I could do then, but I felt that it was unsportsmanlike. Now I can call a T on this play. I like the change. Just don't go overboard with it. Understand that the play it is intended for is very specific.

The rest of the rules changes are insignificant. The only one that matters is the mechanic of switching tableside.

Yes, this was always the rule. But, some people didn't get it.

That's why it's a clarification, not a change.

As was previously stated there are going to be some guys who are going to be challenged by having to deal more directly with a coach with the new tableside mechanic. In our Assoc. we sometimes do 3 man at the JV level. It allows newer officials a good learnering opportunity, I can see where personal communication skills are going to have to improve or the amount of T's is sure to go up.

They are sure to go up. Because officials that love to give Ts will have more opportunity and those that are reda$$ed, will have more opportunity to get upset.

Peace

You are correct, Juulie. It's always been that way. Nothing in the "Editorial Changes" is supposed to be a rule change....just a rewording to clarify misunderstandings of the original rule.

However, last year's committee used it to actually change a rule by imparting their interpretation of a foot on the line regarding LGP.


As you said, this is the most minimal set of changes for as long as I've been doing this. It seems they could reduce the frequency of changes to be bi-yearly and just increase the cost of the books to offset the income difference.

I'd love to go table side after a call. There are many times that you can diffuse the situation by giving immediate explanation.

That is the intent of the change. I agree it's easier to diffuse situations from there than the other side of the court.

That's my point. I've yet to see it in 17 years and you've seen it once in 8 years.

Is this really a problem? :confused:

It's also going to result in a lot of technical fouls on JC coaches. :(

It's like that rule change a year or two ago about pre-game activity in the center jump circle. We've had zero problem here in the Portland area, but somebody somewhere did have problesm, so they had to put it in there. I'm seeing this one the same way.

Actually, that's more a fad thing that more and more teams were beginning to do. For a fad to spread, more and more people have to see it and emulate. We saw quite a bit of this for a few years before the change. It also goes on in college football, which is probably where basketball teams first saw it. If they hadn't put a stop to it, you probably would have seen it eventually.

This change is different in that it's something that could occur during the game. I'd imagine that someone, somewhere saw it. But, seems unlikely to me.

Working girls' AAU this weekend, so I'm looking forward to putting the tableside switch into practice.

Did it during one tourney this year.

The unusual thing is that under the old mechanic, the tableside C or T never switched.

With the new mechanic, it's like the floor has been reversed. If you ever get opposite, you could swallow your whistle and stay in the rocking chair all game. :)

I just wish the Fed would make up it's mind and use some consistency in their philosophy. Last year they changed the procedure to the non-calling official notifying coach and player of DQ on the 5th foul. Reasoning was that it would avoid confrontation. I hated that change not only because it's a chickensh!t way of doing business, but it really is awkward. Not that this matters to me personally, because we still work 2-man.

Mregor

I welcome the change.
 

As I have said before, officiating is more than passing tests and just making calls. It is a lot about your communication and people skills. And if officials that can get high marks on other aspects of officiating, but cannot communicate or have the right demeanor to handle an angry coach in their face (and many officials cannot) they will have problems now. I never did get the "fear" some seem to have with telling a coach about a 5th foul, but many suggested it was a better way to go. Now you are going to have to be in front of that coach for all fouls you call. We will see who can take the heat and who cannot.

Peace

Re: I welcome the change.
 

Jeff- I think that's what Roger said. The change he hated was the one that was made LAST year about the non-calling official notifying the coach on a 5th foul. He agrees with you that the calling official should be explaining and handling the coach.

Re: Re: I welcome the change.
 

Juulie, I am not disagreeing with him. I am just saying I did not like the change either. And now all that "running" that officials advocated, is going to make them do what have to defend their decisions. Which is why I never understood the big deal about who notified the coach on the 5th foul.

But let us face it, the main reason this change was made was to make all levels the same. Mary Struckoff and others have experience or communications with NCAA Officials. Both the NCAA and NF Main Offices are both in Indianapolis. It has been common knowledge that both groups have communications. This is just a result of what has happen in the past 2 years.

Peace

There are two differences:

#1 - In 3 man, the official calling the foul went opposite table after reporting. It made no sense for him to inform the coach, signal the timer, stand at the table, and wait for the sub when the tableside official was already standing there.

#2 - A 5th foul situation is a little more volatile. A foul a coach doesn't like is one thing. A foul that a coach doesn't like that fouls out his star player is another.

Since the calling official will now stay tableside, the old mechanic will be back.

This past season, all coaches did was complain that they wanted an explaination, when their player fouled out. So they spent 10 seconds yelling at the non-calling about how the call was terrible and how they could not believe he called that. When I was the official that was the non-calling official, half the time I did not really see the play. I like the fact that you have to be a man and explain yourself. So what if they complain, that is what coaches do. But just because you were going opposite table, did not mean you could not tell the coach which player fouled out.

I told this story before, but the biggest problem I had was when I was the non-calling official and both my partner and I (3 man game) both had a whistle, which I thought was on the same player. Apparantly we had different calls and when my partner ran and did not inform me who the foul was on, the coach went ballistic on me. I also gave him wrong information, because my partner was scared to tell me what he had, because the coach intimidated him. Now if this happens again, he will have to stand up to the coach. This is why I like this change.

Peace

And it's about time that we start working three, too. However, since I'm already getting games for 2005-06 it's not going to happen in the next two seasons.

--Rich

Exactly. Every official draws their own, particular line in the sand anyway when it comes to what they are gonna take from a coach. That line should be consistent and shouldn't ever move,and it should never be dependant on your position on the court either. Nothing the matter with giving an explanation, no matter where you happen to be standing. The coach's response or actions after that are gonna determine whether you have to do anything further anyway. Just be consistent. The players and coaches have to know what <b>your</b> particular line is, no matter where you happen to be standing.

I'm going to love the new hit signal. Our commissoner is a sticler for the open hand hit, now we get to use the fist. Nice.

I find this amazing and different from what I'm used to. I don't want to put you on the spot but about how many games do you have for next season? I'm just sitting here wondering what it would be like to know when I'm working next season. I think a place I worked in the past doesn't even have schedules finalized for next season. I know this because an assistant coach told me a few years ago that they were having a hard time getting teams to play them. This was in the summer. Of course they went on to win state pretty easily. Anyway, how does the system work?

I have no problem with the table-side switch in the big scheme of things and beleive that the incidence of T's will increase for those thin skinned officials. I do wonder if coming table side may have the effect of "baiting" a coach to question a call more than he would have had I not been there in front of him. Maybe even to the extent that it would be distracting or disruptive to the flow of the game. Venting to the off-call official had its merits and may have saved many a coaches from T's.

Is requesting an explanation a priviledge for a coach or a required response by an official? I think a well-managed game will afford a fair amount of explaining, on a situational basis, but may be tempered by the mutual level of respect that exists between the coach and official. In any event, I think this change will work out just fine.....at least for me.

The same conversations about going table-side came up in higher-level ball over the last few years..."More T's will be called because...", "thin-skinned officials will...", "the coaches will be able to..." After several years of this (speaking only from my own experiences reffing, observing, evaluating, etc) I have seen fewer T's called because the coach isn't screaming across the court at someone and because the calling official is now right there where they can have an actual conversation about the call...coaches who were jerks before will still be jerks, and refs who couldn't handle being griped at before will still have problems with that...but in the larger picture, it will make things go a whole lot smoother...

In Wisconsin, assigning is done by Conference Commissioners or by the AD for non-conference games. It is typical for the commissioners to schedule 2 years or more in advance. The AD's normally do the games a season in advance.

Mregor

League commissioners send out availability sheets about 2 seasons in advance -- when this basketball season was about done they started coming in for 05-06. I probably have an almost full schedule for next season and about 16 scheduled thus far for 05-06.

We will pick up some for next season later as schedules get finalized.

--Rich

Rocky, I'm with you all the way on this one.

What do we know as far as percentages of areas of the country using 3 man in H.S.? From tidbits of info I gather from here and there it seems like they are still fairly small. So most will not be affected, right?

State of WA looks like they may be going to three man at State Tournament time, which some are speculating there will then be pressure to implement this at the playoff levels as well.

Other changes are afoot in this area for suggestions on how to get approval for 3 man during reg. season, much of it involving reduced pay for the first 2-3 years to the officials. Another instance of the officials getting dumped on, IMO. At least there is movement to get us there (3-man mech.)

I know our local Assoc. in Vancouver has been fighting the State the last two seasons to go to 3-person, but they keep telling us no for different reasons...I think we might be able to break that this summer - we have all of our area 4A and 3A coaches and AD's on board, and have $$ issues all figured out (I don't know the details of that for sure) and WIAA office has been more receptive, so we will see...

So what's the reasoning in moving table side in a 3-person game vs. NOT going table side in a 2-person game?

I guess maybe you figure with only two sets of eyes, we can't have one set being dedicated to a coach?

When they made the switch here in Iowa to 3-whistle, they had the refs do two games instead of one (usually boys/girls double header, but sometimes V/JV). I believe this cut down on mileage expenses as well as per-person game fees to make up for the extra official.

[/B][/QUOTE]Originally posted by Rockyroad
[B]

Quote:

I know our local Assoc. in Vancouver has been fighting the State the last two seasons to go to 3-person, but they keep telling us no for different reasons...I think we might be able to break that this summer - we have all of our area 4A and 3A coaches and AD's on board, and have $$ issues all figured out (I don't know the details of that for sure) and WIAA office has been more receptive, so we will see...

Rocky, would be interested in some of the details on this. I serve on our on the Exec. board for our assoc. and would be very curious as to any details you may be able to get on what the different factions were able to agree on--esp. the $$ issue.

The WIAA is more receptive because they have put in motion the changes to use 3 man at State. And supposedly, to qualify to work State, officials assigned must have been through a 3 man, certified camp that the WIAA/WOA will be sponsoring throughout the off-season. Also, they are looking at reducing the # of officials at each venue from the current 16 back to the 12 they had in years past.

Could I ask you to email me the specifics if you are able to out what they are? Thanks, David

Dan, it just doesn't really make sense for the calling official to go table-side every time in a 2-whistle game. Mainly b/c sometimes the table-side official will be the Lead. And if the point of going table-side is to foster communication with the coach, then it won't help much.

Unless you're willing to say, that the calling official always becomes the table-side Trail. (You could do this with FTs, with only minor adjustments.) But then we're going to have to adjust all kinds of other mechanics.

Just doesn't seem workable or practical a lot of the time for a 2-whistle game.

My guess is that it's more the fact that the switch in 2-man is the "north-south" switch combined with the basic positioning on a 2-man throwin. If the ball is being inbounded on the baseline tableside, then it's kinda hard for the trail to also be tableside.

The only two changes that would really be helpful weren't adopted: team control fouls, and POI for Ts. :(

Why would they have instituted this change and not carried it over to the block signal as well? I just think the fists on the hips is such a stronger 'more in control' certitude than the 'mamby-bampy' curtsey signal of the open hand on hips we have to use now. Maybe next year, huh?

Sure...I will try to find out all the gory details...I know it involves a V/JV combo of some kind...and our local group is sponsoring and running one of the WOA camps for three-person mechanics in June...

That's not as namby-pamby as when the ref gets confused and signals both the block and the charge one with each arm. Now THAT's funny!!!!

That's quite a mental image. A guy in stripes, with one hand behind his head and the other hand, palm down, on his hip. Not that there's anything wrong with that. . .

Just when you thought it was safe to attend a wedding reception . . . .


http://hometown.aol.com/nikbekjak/images/macarena.jpg

http://www.joesaraceno.com/images/macarena.jpg


Thanks, Chuck.

Thanks. :p

Actually happened at camp last summer. Been a hard image to shake!

Juulie, did he try and 'sell' the call too? Was there some kind of 'shake' thrown in.

Finally, Were you able to stifle the smile and restrain the laughter? If so you need to get your Screen Actors Guild Card.

This gives me an idea for our 'end-of-season' banquet I'm responsible for next year.:D

Are you serious Rut? So you think MOST HS officials are incapable of handling Coaches in this situation.
I have officiated HS ball for over 15 years...also some small college ball years ago...so I think I might be qualified in telling you, you are full of it (or yourself).
I would be more apt to agree with Dan when he stated that SOME HS officials might have a problem with this.

Yes. I said MOST. I mean MOST. And most is not the 20 year vet.

Well I have been working almost 10 years and working varsity ball for 8 years, I think I am rather qualified to comment on this as well. I do not think that most HS officials can handle a coach without giving a T. And one of the reasons this is, mainly because coaches at the HS level just rant and rave over just about everything. And part of this is because most officials at the HS level do not have the respect of most HS coaches. So I believe that the Ts will go up as a result. You do not have to agree, just my opinion. This mechanic is OK for the college level because the coaches are more professional and have more of a relationship with the officials. They are not seeing different officials every single game.

I have had assignors tell me and others in my area, that coaches try to get rid of the assignors of their conference all the time. And usually this happens because they are upset of who works their games. They do not trust the judgment of the so called experts, what makes you think they think of the guy that is working their game?

Peace

Camp nothin'! A guy did it in a STATE FINAL out here 2 seasons ago. He shouted block too. We dubbed it the "I'm a little teapot" signal. :D

Which game was it? I don't remember that and I know it wasn't me! I'm sure someone brought this up at one of our postgame "meetings." :D

[Edited by tomegun on May 5th, 2004 at 08:59 AM]

I agree with this statement. IMO it is true but high school coaches probably get more Ts than college coaches. This relationship is different on the two levels. The high school coach doesn't know when/how to ask a question and/or argue. The high school coach also doesn't know how to let something go. At the same time some high school refs don't know how to talk, laugh, answer, reach a stopping point and administer a T. Some base their security on whether a coach says "good job" or not. Some assume everything will go OK. We have to plan for many situations taking the climate of the game into account and many high school officials do not do this. I will go one step further than JRut. I think most of the increase in Ts will come from officials who have never officiated a college game. I say this because they have always been across court and this will be totally new.
An example: We were having a pre-game before the state final. My two partners had not seen one of the coaches because he was from my area. So I tell them that this coach is a nice guy but he can go too far and earn a T. One of my partners says "oh, he will be OK." So, I'm like OK whatever. So we are in the first quarter and a call was made right him front of him and I'm the C across court. He has a tantrum and I'm just watching. All I needed was some popcorn. Fans in the stands going nuts, what's going to happen? Technical foul (by the official who didn't make the comment in the locker room). I thought he would be OK? He calmed down and went on to win state by two points. I think Nevadaref was on the table (blowing the horn all the time :D) This situation wasn't the ugliest but it could have been handled a little smoother if he had accepted my comments in the pre-game and been ready for anything. Nevada, was my story pretty accurate?

"I'm a little teapot?!?!" Even I, the Quaker nursery school teacher, didn't think of THAT one! "Tinkerbell" was the first word that popped into my head, and that was the nicest among the several that were verbalized!

And no, david, I don't get the Screen Actors' Guild award. Neither do any of the about 10 or so other refs who were standing around guffawing. The ref who did it will NEVER live it down.

Hey, Rook and Rut, here's an interesting fact. Almost no one agrees with anyone else about the meanings of the general quantity words. I saw a study where people were asked to rank about twenty quantity words -- like few, some, many, several, etc -- from biggest to smallest. and out of about 250 people, no two rankings were exactly the same. NONE. And none of the words was in the same position on every single response. So your "some" and "most" might be a lot closer together than you think.

When I say most, I mean more that 50%. If you take my state as an example. The officials that work the post season are a small percentage of all the officials in the entire state. Out of those officials, there will be several that will not know how to calm down a coach or handle their rant to where it does not result in a T. So as a result, the T totals will go up. And just like said before, a lot of this has to deal with what the coach does as well. It is not all in the lap of the official. But if the official handles it right, he or she can easily squash the situation.

Peace

Juulie, very interesting bit of info, one I will file away and try to remind myself when I sometimes find myself a little overboard in many of my conversations about how little the other participant knows about the several topics we are attempting to discuss in great depth.:)

Seriously, I believe keeping in mind a study like this can facilitate better communication. I hope to keep it in mind.

Great post!!

It wasn't you, but it was your game! And let me tell you, we've had a lot of fun reminding your partner about it for 2 years now at those post game "meetings."

Although, last year he called BI from the Lead and that got him even more grief.

Nevada, I thought about it yesterday and I do remember it. It was the shorter/smaller of my partners right? He is the one that said he would have no problem with the coach. Those are the sorts of things we laugh about after the game but just try to get by as quickly as possible during the game.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by tomegun
[B]Was he right?

Out of those 250 people, how many agreed that "NONE" named the least amount possible? :)

None, and all weren't on the list. I don't remember what they all were, but they were all vague or general.

Whether or not the T numbers go up, this will force officials to improve their communications skills. Or they won't be working top level games. Sounds good to me.

--Rich

PS - We worked some HS games tableside last season (I guess we're ahead of our time). And for us, it worked out better. Never had to try to communicate across the floor and officials were always able to talk calmly to coaches.

Hmmmm Rich...so, through deductive reasoning, we might say that NONE of the officials had a problem with communicating tableside.
Rut says MOST...Rich implies NONE...Dan says SOME will have a problem communicating.
Maybe it's just the area we are in.;)

If you ask Juulie she'll tell you that SOME could be more or less NONE and MOST could be more or less ALL.

Or thereabouts... ;)

Actually, no. I have the videotape to prove it. The ball had rebounded forward and was fully in front of the rim, but still higher than 10ft. when the kid tapped it in. But the C called it too, so the coach bought it. My buddy was the C on this play, which is the only reason that I have looked at the tape.

And for tomegun,
Yep. That's the guy. I'll also add that this was my finger on the horn game! :)