NFHS Points of Emphasis
 

1. Concussions
If you suspect that a player has a concussion, you should take the following steps:

1. Remove athlete from play.
2. Ensure athlete is evaluated by an appropriate health care professional. Do not try to judge the seriousness of the injury yourself.
3. Inform athlete’s parents or guardians about the known or possible concussion and give them the fact sheet on concussion.
4. Allow the athlete to return to play only with permission from an appropriate health care professional.

These signs and symptoms may indicate that a concussion has occurred.

Signs Observed by Coaching Staff
• Appears dazed or stunned
• Is confused about assignment
• Forgets plays
• Is unsure of game, score or opponent
• Moves clumsily
• Answers questions slowly
• Loses consciousness
• Shows behavior or personality changes
• Can’t recall events prior to hit
• Can’t recall events after hit

Symptoms Reported by Athlete
• Headache
• Nausea
• Balance problems or dizziness
• Double vision or fuzzy vision
• Sensitivity to light or noise
• Feeling sluggish
• Feeling foggy or groggy
• Concentration or memory problems
• Confusion

2. Uniforms
Last season the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee was concerned with the use of uniforms in unsporting ways. Although there has been a marked improvement in this area, there is still a need to enforce the proper wearing of the uniform, especially as it relates to keeping the jersey tucked in and the shorts pulled up above the hips. In addition, in a rules change for 2006-07, the committee also established guidelines for the wearing of headbands and sweatbands. Other concerns relating to the uniform that need to be addressed are:
A. Undershirts. Illegal undershirts are increasingly being worn. If visible, undershirts shall be similar in color to the torso of the jersey and shall not have frayed or ragged edges. If the undershirts have sleeves, they shall be the same length and must be hemmed. Visible markings, including manufacturer’s logo/trademark/reference or the school’s mascot/logo are not permitted.
B. Compression Sleeves. There has been an increase in players wearing sleeves for various reasons. Compression sleeves worn for medical reasons are legal. Decorative sleeves made of cotton or other non-supportive materials are prohibited.

3. Time-outs
Proper procedures for requesting and granting time-outs have become an area of concern.
A. Granting Time-outs. Coaches attempting to call a time-out during playing action are a continuing problem. When player control is lost, officials must concentrate on playing action while attempting to determine if a time-out should be granted. Coaches should recognize that a request for a time-out does not guarantee that a time-out will be granted until player control is clearly established. Officials should not grant a time-out until player control is clearly established.
B. 30-Second Time-outs. The length of a 30-second time-out has increasingly been improperly extended. Failure to return to the court at the warning signal, continually cleaning up spilled water, and cheerleaders or other on-court entertainment are prime examples. Officials shall indicate to the benches when the warning signal has sounded. Coaches should immediately prepare players to return to the floor so that the game may promptly begin when the second horn is sounded. Hydrating players should do so near team benches and off the playing surface. Delaying the resumption of play after any time-out due to water clean up may result in the issuance of a team warning. Lastly, cheerleaders or other on-court entertainment are not permitted on the court during a 30-second time-out.

4. Intentional Fouls
The committee continues to be concerned about how games end. While there has been some improvement in the application of the rule, there is still need for further understanding and enforcement. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.

Additionally, in throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way (setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass, etc.) must be deemed intentional. Far too often, officials do not call fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria.

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals
The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:
• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team “wants” to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.
• Closely Guarded – Officials must properly judge the six-foot distance and begin a closely-guarded count when a defender obtains a legal guarding position. Failure to properly judge the six-foot distance and require the defender to be within three or four feet of the dribbler before beginning the closely-guarded count puts the defensive player in an unfair position. The count terminates when the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender.
• Coaching Box – In states that authorize the use of the optional coaching box, the head coach is the only person on the bench that is permitted to stand and must remain in the coaching box. All other bench personnel must remain seated at all times except when a team member is reporting to the scorer’s table, during time-outs or intermissions, and to spontaneously react to a play.
B. Proper Signal Use. Signals are a means of communication by officials to scorers, players, coaches, spectators and media. Deviation from approved NFHS signals is unacceptable.

Item#: 765 Posted: 05/09/06

I officiate in Allen Iverson's hometown, I'm gonna have to ask for a lot of doctor's notes :confused:

Looks like somebody on the NFHS rules committee has been peaking at some of our forum arguments.

THANK YOU! For years, we've had posters in this site who said that the count does not terminate. Now you can get over yourselves! :D

I would imagine we'll get some direction on this one in a little while. I think that the big thing is that we now know that non-compression sleeves gotta go. Also, the "Comments" on the new rules revisions that were also just posted on the FED site clarified the wearing of wristbands and headbands. These must be unadorned except for a permissible logo(manufacturer or school), be the same color as the shirt or white, and worn as intended. One per head or wrist. Wristbands must be worn below the elbow and be 4" or less wide; headbands go on the head and must be 2" or less.

If they're on the upper arm, around the neck, on the leg, etc., they're illegal and gotta go iow.

Will the new rule revision apply to those who dress their ankles with wristbands, rubber bands and bracelets?

And will basketball officials continue to ignore rule changes and decide to have their own interpretation of the new rules or completely ignore them?

1) Players never could legally be wearing all that crap on their ankles. They're all regarded as "jewelry" and have been illegal for a long time. The rules state that this type of equipment should be worn in the manner that the manufacturer intended. If the players have been getting away with that, it's unfortunately because the people officiating their games either don't know the rules or don't have the will to enforce the present rules.

2) Geeze, I can't answer that one. It's certainly a good point. We go over new rules, POE's etc. with our officials at the start of each year, and we insist that they call their games by them. After that, we do have to police our officials to make sure that they are following our directives- with the object naturally being uniformity of game-calling. However, I'd have to be awfully naive (or stoopid) to believe that everybody is doing things our way. There's different ideas from area to area on how much physical contact should be allowed under the boards, for example. Expecting uniformity of calls across the country is just a pipe dream. Imo, the best that can be hoped for is uniformity of calls within a specific area. If a few officials are gonna ignore a new rule or POE, then it's probably better for everybody involved if all officials in that area do the same. That way, at least the players and coaches know what to expect, and what they can do or not do during a game.

And to add to JR's point here (and this is in NO way referring to JR) - as long as we have Supervisors, Commissioners, Assignors, whatever we want to call them, who decide that they want something called "this way" in their games, we will never have uniformity across the boards...example: one Supervisor I work for wants hand-checking called according to the way it is written in the book (rightly so), but another supervisor I work for only wants it called if the ball handler is "going north-south, but not if they're going east-west" (exact words from the supervisor since I wrote them down when they were said)...so when a team from the second conference plays at a school from the first conference, they get really frustrated at the hand-check calls, and vice-versa...it's very frustrating.

There is a bit of a grey area here. What about those bands which players wear around their knees to help stabilize the ligaments and kneecap? I have to believe that those are still legal since that is the intended purpose of them and they are not sweatbands.

I continue to assert that this is totally inconsistent with the intentional foul rule and the POI every year on intentional fouls.

What part of "intentional" in unclear to the committee? If they are going to make this foolish statement (foolish because they want it both ways), they need to change the term "intentional" to something that doesn't mean done deliberately. Fouling to stop the clock means the fouling is done deliberately.

Are you telling us that every single non-intentional foul you've ever called was 100% guaranteed to be unintentional & accidental?

No he's not saying that. He's saying that the name "intentional foul" doesn't make sense and that they should simply change the name. I don't see how you came to your conclusion.

Because he said fouls to stop the clock are done deliberately. I don't know about you but I've seen many "deliberate" fouls that are not called as intentional, and they should not be. For instance some fouls on lay-ups are *clearly* deliberate but definitely *not* intentional. In the same way that so-called strategic fouls should *not* be called intentional. The fed committee has already agreed that strategic fouls are part of the game, they just want the HS coaches to teach how to do this properly and they want the officials to call it when they are not done properly.

That's all in there the press release.

The committee did not say, "fouling to prevent a layup is an accepted coaching strategy." If they did, I might have taken the same issue with it as I did here. However, here the committee is emphasizing that intentional fouls should be called and its been a POI forever. Yet they are saying that intentional fouls are essentially acceptable, at least as a strategy. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.

How do you "properly" commit a rules infraction where "properly" is defined by those who originally wrote the rules, intending on infractions being illegal and penalized? That's the issue I have here.

In football, they changed intentional grounding rules to create a balance of play. 15 years ago (or whenever), a QB couldn't spike the ball to stop the clock. Now they can. But it was a rule change. The football committee didn't say, "you can properly stop the clock by doing this, which is an acceptable coaching strategy, but it is still a rules infraction and will be penalized."

So if I am reading you correctly, your problem is the use of the word "Intentional" and that fouling to stop the clock is done "intentionally", even tho (as Dan said) other fouls comitted during the game are also done "intentionally"...an Intentional foul is one which is a non-basketball play, a foul away from the ball to stop the clock, or one where the contact is severe, etc...a foul on the ball handler, making an attempt on the ball, may be done on purpose, but it does not fit the requirements of Intentional...and the use of a foul late in the game to stop the clock has been around forever.

I guess I really am not understanding why you are so bent about this one, TexasAggie...

I think it's like that old judicial opinion about obscenity, we can't define an intentional foul, but we know it when we see one.