Rule Change Proposals

[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.

[BillyMac]

Stat-Man:

Good idea for a change. It would certainly help the referee when he or she checks the book for identical or illegal numbers. It would also make it easier for the scorekeeper who doesn't know the player's names to find the number quickly to record points and fouls. Would there a need to for a provision for a late, but still before the ten minute mark, change; torn or bloodied uniforms needing changing, varsity player getting sick or injured and being replaced on the roster by a junior varsity player, etc? Some coaches make up the roster hours before game time.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[blindzebra]

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.

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.

I really don't see adding the word inbounds to 3 seconds, closely guarded and 10 seconds backcourt is that major of a change for team control during a throw-in to take place.

[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

[comical]

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.

I understand the reasoning behind this proposed change. However, my question would be what if there was an unusually large roster and there were more names than spaces available? The team for which I keep the book (at the Division III level) had 16 players on its roster this season (with 15 spaces for each team per game in the book). One visiting team this year had 19 players on the squad. Maybe it's different in high school and there is a cap on the number of players. In my experience at the college level, however, strictly enforcing this would be a problem. If there wasn't some flexibility, it would be difficult to keep track of fouls and points if, for example, #50 and #55 were squeezed into the same space if each played a significant number of minutes. Invariably (at least in most games) if there is a large number of players, there are several players that won't play. I would fit the numbers and names of those players into the same space and would forget about putting the roster in numerical order.