Rule Change Proposals

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Since NFHS is big on administrative rule changes, I have one:

2-11-1-Note: It is recommended required the team member numbers be submitted and entered into the official scorebook in numerical order.

To address a pet peeve of mine.

This might work as well as "recommending" the home book and the visiting book to sit together. I stopped trying to be anal about that a long time ago.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Just thought I'd give you a progress report. I had the opportunity to work with a member of the FED rules committee last weekend. We worked a college game together. I gave him the list that we'd compiled and he commented on a few of the proposals.

3) Expand definition of team control to include holding the ball OOB for a throw-in.

As we know, the FED doesn't like to make big exceptions or changes to long-standing rules. And that's what this one would require. He doesn't see much chance for this one.

5) TO shall not be granted to a head coach unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

This would be like "putting the genie back in the bottle", according to him. Just not going to happen, until all the members of the committee are officials. The coaches like it too much. It's never going away.

6) Violation for the inbounder delaying his return to the court.

The rules committee actually wanted this as part of the rule change a couple years ago. But the FED itself didn't like it. Since it's a T for a player to delay his return during a normal play or after a TO, they thought it should also remain a T if he delays his return following a throw-in. They didn't like the idea of two different penalties for exactly the same infraction, just b/c they happen at different times. So I don't think this one will fly.

8) Add "gray shirt" to approved uniform for officials.

No support for it at all on the committee. In the past, they proposed it as a State Adoption, but the FED itself said that there are already enough State Adoptions and didn't want any more. This is also why you will never see the shot clock as a State Adoption. Either everyone is going to use it, or no one is.

14) Revise sweatband requirements.

Not going to happen.

15) Prohibit substitutions after the final FT of a multiple throw.

Another one that has been discussed, but the coaches like it too much. It's a tactic that the coaches will not give up.

16) Change the blarge procedure to eliminate the double foul penalty.

He was unaware of the women's NCAA procedure. When I explained it, he asked, "What if they can't agree whose call it was?" So I'm not sure if that one will fly either, although I personally hope it does.

The others, he didn't really comment on. Just thought I'd pass it along to everybody.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Just thought I'd give you a progress report.

Did you ask him about that stoopid ruling from Mary Struckhoff? The one about no backcourt violation if a pass from the backcourt hits an official in the frontcourt and then goes into the backcourt again?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you ask him about that stoopid ruling from Mary Struckhoff? The one about no backcourt violation if a pass from the backcourt hits an official in the frontcourt and then goes into the backcourt again?

thats very usefule -- its happend 14 times to me this year

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you ask him about that stoopid ruling from Mary Struckhoff? The one about no backcourt violation if a pass from the backcourt hits an official in the frontcourt and then goes into the backcourt again?

D'Oh!! I totally forgot! He did say that there were some committee members who were puzzled about her interpretation on hair wrap not needing to conform to the "one color" rule change, since the whole point of the rule change was to make all equipment on the arms and head the same color. That should've triggered my memory on the BC sitch. But it didn't.

[psujaye]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Either allow college players to call a time-out while airborne (while heading out-of-bounds) or else don't allow NFHS players to do it. Make it the same for crying out loud.

Change slapping the backboard to basket interference if the ball is on the cylinder. Or else make it a T anytime a player slaps the backboard, not just if the officials think they are doing it on purpose.

Get a clarification from the NHFS about a foul on a player who is shooting and then passes after the foul is called. Do they get 2 shots because they were in the shooting motion or is it a non-shooting foul because they ended up passing the ball?

How does everyone handle this? My partner and I had a double whistle on a foul call (we had the same call- he reported it) and i was surprised when he said '2 shots' bc the player passed the ball after the whistle blew (he was in the air when we called the foul). The coach bit%hed and my partner said 'coach there is no way i can tell if he is going to shoot or pass when he leaves his feet'. that satified the coach, but i still think i would've kept the foul on the floor. thoughts?

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

8) Add "gray shirt" to approved uniform for officials.
No support for it at all on the committee. In the past, they proposed it as a State Adoption, but the FED itself said that there are already enough State Adoptions and didn't want any more. This is also why you will never see the shot clock as a State Adoption. Either everyone is going to use it, or no one is.

So what? States do not need the Fed's blessing to adopt a rule. States routinely adopt rules (such as using the shot clock) without permission from the Fed. And nothing happens to those states. It is helpful to have a uniform set of national rules, but it seems that individual states can do what they please without needing any formal approval from the Fed.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Ok, so far, here are the serious suggestions: (I'm leaving out mechanics suggestions for the moment.)

1) Add "slapping the backboard" to the definition of BI.
...
16) Change the blarge procedure to eliminate the double foul penalty.

So far, only #11 #12, #13, and #14 have been written in a way that meets the FED's requirements. Anybody want to write up any of the other ones? Any other suggestions?

You forgot my very serious proposal to not make any changes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

So what? States do not need the Fed's blessing to adopt a rule. States routinely adopt rules (such as using the shot clock) without permission from the Fed. And nothing happens to those states. It is helpful to have a uniform set of national rules, but it seems that individual states can do what they please without needing any formal approval from the Fed.

I do not know if that is entirely true. I think the NF can take away from a state their possible representation on regional committees in a particular sport. Not to say that has been done to states that adopt some individual rules. I do not have a specific example of this, but this is what I have heard. I am too lazy to do the research. I do know that any state can be more restrictive on a particular rule. That was told to me by someone on another sport NF Committee.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

So what? States do not need the Fed's blessing to adopt a rule. States routinely adopt rules (such as using the shot clock) without permission from the Fed. And nothing happens to those states. It is helpful to have a uniform set of national rules, but it seems that individual states can do what they please without needing any formal approval from the Fed.

Oh?

See p68 of the current NFHS rules book. The FED lists the type of adoptions that any state may use. Any other adoptions outside of those, including a shot clock, are not approved by the NFHS. Experimental rules may be tried out with the blessing of the NFHS. As JRut said, states that put in their own rules may lose their input and representation on or to the rules committee. I have heard of several states that have lost those privileges, and I believe yours is one of them.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Just thought I'd give you a progress report. I had the opportunity to work with a member of the FED rules committee last weekend. We worked a college game together. I gave him the list that we'd compiled and he commented on a few of the proposals.

3) Expand definition of team control to include holding the ball OOB for a throw-in.

As we know, the FED doesn't like to make big exceptions or changes to long-standing rules. And that's what this one would require. He doesn't see much chance for this one.
Chuck, we absolutely need to get this one changed. To me, this is not a big change, but a very small one. Once I give the ball to the inbounder, the team has control or should have control. I think this is a very easy one to change and the coaches would support it.

5) TO shall not be granted to a head coach unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

This would be like "putting the genie back in the bottle", according to him. Just not going to happen, until all the members of the committee are officials. The coaches like it too much. It's never going away.
What a shame, this would make it easier for us to administrator. This is also a problem waiting to happen. I notice this year they have given the NBA coaches the ability to call TO's, in particular instances of course. Probably had something to do with the Dallas Miami playoff situation last year.

15) Prohibit substitutions after the final FT of a multiple throw.

Another one that has been discussed, but the coaches like it too much. It's a tactic that the coaches will not give up. It's a great tactic, I don't think it should change either.

16) Change the blarge procedure to eliminate the double foul penalty.

He was unaware of the women's NCAA procedure. When I explained it, he asked, "What if they can't agree whose call it was?" So I'm not sure if that one will fly either, although I personally hope it does. I'm not sure I agree with the women's procedure. How do you determine which one occurred first, unfairly penalizing one of the teams? I personally wouldn't want something like this coming down to a referee's decision which could decide the game.

I thought there where some that where more important then these. I support #3, let's hope for that one.

[Mark Padgett]

I wonder what that guy would have thought about my #1 proposed rule change: coaches must remain seated for the entire game - in the parking lot.

[swkansasref33]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Any penalty in football can be declined,

Not true at all my friend. Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

[Snake~eyes]

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Not true at all my friend. Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

Wrong - simply not true. ANY penalty can be declined, this is a football fundamental. Often times we don't ask the team since its automatic that they will accept it but the team does have the option to decline it. Look it up.

[Texas Aggie]

Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

Someone needs to read the rule book before commenting on something in it!