Rule Change Proposals
 

This week, I received a form for making rule change suggestions to the FED. Anybody can get the form and make a suggestion, I guess. But I happen to know a member of the rules committee, so he sends me the form directly. If you have a rule that you think should be changed and you would like me to send it on to the committee, here's your chance!

To be submitted, the change has to be submitted exactly as you think it should read in the book. Also, they want us to note exactly what part of the existing rule would have to be deleted, if necessary. Finally (enough hoops to jump through? :) ), they ask to note other rules and cases affected by the proposed change.

So it's not enough to say, "I'd like to see them go to the POI for a single technical foul". It needs to be written up precisely as it would appear in next year's rulebook.

I got a tremendous response last year when I asked for case book play proposals, so I hope that you have some ideas to pass along.

Hi Chuck...good to hear from you again.

Obviously, the NFHS "Blarge" to match the NCAA-W "Blarge" mechanic.
(As evident in previous posts)

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 about a "sideline warning" for coaches out of their box, similar to the football rule. First time it's a warning. Any additional, technical foul. Maybe even make it one of the "formal warning" items, although, I would make it a warning of it's own.

In Illinois we had a warning last year, it was removed this year and is now an automatic T.

I think I would like to see team control during a throw-in.

Change team control to include a throwin for the purposes of the team control foul...just like the NCAA rule.

Who's the new guy that started this thread?:confused:

Wait a minute......

Is it?

Could it be?

Damn, I thought we got rid of him permanently. Sumb!tch has made more comebacks now than George Foreman!:rolleyes:

I think it is a true Chuck Elias sighting!

With the way the game is going, contact and rough play wise, I'd be in favor of changing the bonus situation and eliminating the 1 and 1. 2 shots at the 7th foul, and 2 shots plus the ball at the 10th foul.

Fed needs to drop the idea that fouling to stop the clock is a legitimate coaching strategy. I know its been around forever, but the thought of essentially saying "it is a legitimate coaching strategy to break the rules if you think it will give you an advantage, as long as you are willing to pay for it" is ridiculous.

Why? I think it's perfectly acceptable and has always been in basketball.

The did that already.

It was such a huge success they changed it back a couple of years later.

I have an idea though. Let's not have ANY changes next year. None at all, leave everything the way it was, only change the year and the committee members.

Now that would be new.

On a throw-in only: delayed return to the court by inbounder is a violation rather than a technical.

Coaches can call time-out only during a dead ball.

Now I've gotta go fill in the form.

When did they do that?

I think an Indirect Technical to the HC should be added for substitutes who do not report correctly (ie substitutes entering the court without reporting or without being beckoned.) as per Rule 10-2.

I'll second this one.

I want to eliminate the player control signal and just go with the fist, rename it an offensive control foul.

I can say with complete confidence that you will <b>NEVER</b> see that from the FED.

Rule book revenue. You knew that.

Why not just call it a team control foul? A player control foul is really a subset of the team control foul (plus the airborne shooter case).

This would be good too:

Change the Blarge so that the officials have to come together and decided which happend first instead of reporting the double foul.

HC may only call time out when the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

Make the gray shirt officially legal.

Add definitions of "reaching in" and "over the back." Everybody uses those terms, and no amount of whining about them here will ever change that. So give them a sensible definition and then we'll have some ammo to use next time the coach starts hollering about "he's reaching."

Make it a capital offense for anybody on the bench to yell "TRAVEL!" Ever. For any reason.

By state adoption, the "electronic fence" can be employed to keep coaches in their boxes while the clock is running.

Require scorekeepers and clock operators to be state trained and certified. When students are employed to run the clock/book, cell phones must be handed over to the referee, and no other students may sit within 25 feet of the score table.

Why? It's used in other sports. Baseball has the intentional walk; they don't give the batter two bases after the 8th walk. Football teams will often take a delay of game penalty to use more time and give their punter more space to kick.

Rule Changes
 

1) Head coach may only call a time out when the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

2) Team control during a throw in. This would effect the no backcourt on a throw in exception.

3) No jump balls. Use a coin flip like in football or soccer, or decide to give it to the visitors, or home team first. After that, use the alternating possession arrow, including overtime.

I believe the baseball rule reads something like "a ball is a LEGAL pitch... (that is outside the strike zone; my paraphrase)." The key word there is LEGAL. A foul is not legal in basketball. Completely different issue. A walk is simply the result of 4 called balls. Further, a team can easily rectify a walk by either a caught stealing, pickoff, or double play. How can you rectify a play in basketball?

Any penalty in football can be declined, thus the 5 yard walk off wouldn't happen. If the offense is ahead and gets a delay call, the rules state clearly that the Referee can start the clock on the snap, eliminating the ability of the offense to milk the clock in that way. Further, a 5 yard penalty isn't inherently advantageous.

Stopping the clock in basketball by committing a foul IS inherently advantageous. Other than a foul on an attempted 3 point shot, the most number of free throws the offense can get is 2. If a team can shoot 3's consistently, they can win the game by using rules infractions to their advantage. I realize this isn't anything new. Hell, I use to foul to stop the clock when I was first playing ball about 7 or so years old. My point is that the game has changed to the point where fouling is not only encouraged to stop the clock at the end of the game, but also to keep a team from shooting a three point shot to win. That is not what basketball is or should be about.

If you allow 'Team Control' on throw-in, then you have to restructure the wording to allow the exception for backcourt and allow a player to remain in the 'Painted Area' for more than 3 seconds.
I believe the NCAA has this incorporated into their rules.
I also would like automatic BI for slapping the backboard w/o contacting the ball.

All you need to do is add the word inbounds.

4 or 5 years ago the fed declared that the strategy of fouling to stop the clock was evil and must be stopped by calling these end of game touch fouls intentional. In fact, they came right out and said if a coach or team is yelling "foul 'em! foul 'em!!" you *must* call an intentional foul. Not being as dumb as they look, coaches started using a code word, shouting something like "red! red!! red!!!" instead of "foul 'em!!".

As I said this was so universally accepted that 2 years later (I think 2 years ago now?) they completely reversed their position and said in print that fouling to stop the clock at the end of the game is a respected strategy that is available to coaches but they must instruct their players to foul in the correct manner.

Froum Usernames
 

I seldom look at Forum usernames unless I want to reply to a specific quote or post in a thread, so it wasn't until today that I noticed the username of the gentleman posting this thread.

Welcome back ChuckElias. I can probably guess that you're only returning for this one thread so that you can get some input for your rule change form, and then you'll "disappear into the night". You've been missed. When you were posting on this Forum more frequently, in discussing this Forum with my colleagues, I often refered to you, in only my opinion, as the "unofficial interpreter" of the Forum.

Chuck is the "unofficial?" Is that anything like the "uncola?"

Could someone copy and paste the survey in this thread for us all to see? This has been done on the FB board and then we can get more discussion.

I appreciate that, Bill, thanks. But to be honest, I've always thought Tony and/or Bob J held that position.

I don't have a survey. All I got was the proposal form. Once the FED gets all the proposals, then I think they put out a survey to see how much support there is for each proposal.

To everyone who has submitted a proposal, I thank you. But if you want me to include it on my form, I need to have the rule number that is being changed, and the exact language that you want the new rule to have. In other words, I need you to write out the rule exactly as you want it to appear in next year's book. Thanks!

You know, I almost threw in a pre-emptive "shut up" at the beginning of the thread, b/c I knew you or Dan would have some nice welcome for me. :p

It is clarified!
 

If they want a shooting foul then shoot it!!! If they pass then it is no shot... Seems pretty clear to me.:eek:

Welcome you? Why, have you been gone?

get rid of the 10 second count during the FT, I have never seen a violation called in 51 years.

WOW! You being officiating 51 years.;)

I am 51 years old. Have never seen this called in my entire life.

That's not exactly what I'm proposing.

Oh. I coulda sworn it was Texas Aggie that wrote this

Apologies if my browser is broken and it wasn't you after all.

If more of us called the intentional foul tighter and more often, I think the situation would change without a rule book change. I have seen the offensive player make a good play in avoiding the defender trying to foul him and the defender just reachinng and touching his shirt as he dribbles by. He should get the shots AND the ball is this type situation in my opinion. I found this hard to do with all my partner calling it the other way. Retired now so I can just watch.

Dan: instead of trying to be a smart ***, read again what we both wrote. I don't care what coaches say or what their instructions are. I'm interested in creating a rule set that, regardless of when or why fouls are committed, they are discouraged as a coaching strategy. It isn't strictly at the end of the game to stop the clock, but could also discourage the foul strategy that puts people on the line instead of allowing them, for example, a layup when the offensive player has clearly beaten the defender (assuming 10+ fouls).

That's why I said not "exactly", and I stand by that.

Fed doesn't want us to call it tighter because they specifically said that fouling to stop the clock is an acceptable strategy. Until they remove that language, its moot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that specific play (shirt grab) listed as one that should be called an intentional foul? Or, are you speaking of the idea officials use that when they are trying to foul, we are going to give it to them so as not to risk having a physical retaliation, fight, etc.? If the latter, then it still goes back to that damn quote in the rulebook, which in my opinion is 100% wrong.

2 man Mechanics
 

Change the Mechanics in 2 man officials. Have the official that reports the foul stay at table side. Thus making it similar with 3 man mechanics.
Not all varsity games in St. Louis, MO use 3 officials. There have been times that my partner, in a 2 man game, has stayed at table side after reporting the foul. I just made my adjustment in administering the Free Throw and we chatted about this proceedure after the game.

As I said this very thing - declaring startegic fouls evil - was tried and it was rejected shortly after. Period. In fact when the fed changed back they acknowledged the legitimacy of strategic fouls.

If you have fed rule books that go back 4 or 5 years you would know this. Instead of concerning yourself with my tone you should go back and read them.

LOL......

Should be the final 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes though. Make it real to life.....

<b>COACH:</b> <i>"Hey you, sh!thead, gimme a technical foul."</i>
<b>OFFICIAL:</b> <i>"No way! You asked for one."</I>

Bad News. Bad, bad News.....:D

chuck good to have you back...if only for a brief time
 

Rule 9-9-1

as it reads: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the front court.......

As I would like to see it read: A player from the team in control shall not be the first to touch a ball in the backcourt if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball int eh frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Reasoning is a discussion we had earlier in a meeting. By strict reading of the rule in its current wording, A1 shoots, the ball goes to the backcourt and is recovered by A2...this could be called a backcourt violation, if only by a strict reading of the rules...The ball had been in team control in the front court and A1 was the last to touch it in the front court, where A2 was the first to touch it in the backcourt. There is a case play that governs, and gives the correct interp for this situation, but by making the change it would lessen the possibility of a misapplication.

Amen. That's exactly what I was going to say. It almost seems as if there are rule changes each year so the rules committee can say it did something.

When A1 shot, Team lost control so by a strict or loose sense of reading the rules this could never be a violation.

sseltser, I understand that that is the interpretation in the case book, and I whole heartedly agree, but that is not what the rule book says....It says and I quote 9-9-1...A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

A1 shoots the ball from the front court, it is a long rebound either touched by A2 in the front court or by no one, goes to the back court where A3 recovers it. By the strict reading of the rule above it is indeed a violation.

The ball was in team control in the front court (before A1 shot it)
it was last touched by either A1 or A2, depending on which you want to use, in the front court, then touched by A3 in the backcourt.

It doesn't say that team control must be maintained, only that a ball that has been in team control in the front court, and it had been when A1 shot it. The proposal just cleans that up a bit....

wow you really need THAT cleared up...

I hope you are willing to work 3 hour games. Some teams are really bad and foul a lot and you could have 10 fouls early in the 4th if not late in 3rd! This would be completely stupid!

wow is right
 

wow, I didn't say cleared up, I said CLEANED up......:eek:

As an addendum to this, kill the long switch also!!!!

Agree, this mechanic needs to change. Calling official should go table side and stay 2-person. I have had many coaches say they just want to ask a question but they can't because the official is on the other side of the court. Leave the option for the official to go opposite the table if they feel they need to.

#2.) Lower the FT count from 10 to 7, this will speed up the game. You're hardly ever going to reach 10 so either remove it all together or set it to 7 or a lower number.

#3.) Clock runs in the 4th quarter if down by more than 40 points. Direct technical foul on the coach for pressing if team is ahead by more than 40 points in the 4th quarter.

#4.) Running up the score: Add a direct technical foul to the coach for running up the score or attempting to get a player to score as many points as possible (personal gain) by running up the score. This encourages team play, eliminates embarrassing of weaker teams, sends the message its a team sport and not it's all about me.

#5.) My best one. Add a rule where a coach can get a technical after the game has been completed for unprofessional conduct in the game. For example: if you win a game 175 - 25 and your star player scores 125 points. Direct technical and one game suspension for running up the score if you can prove that the coach was negligent. After further review of the game, access technical fouls accordingly. Make coaching accountable even if the game is over. Just because the game is over doesn't mean you can't get a technical for your actions in the game. I feel strongly about this at the high school level.

Wow. Just.... wow.....

please dont heed any of these suggestions -- we are not the moral police -- neither should we be dictating how coaches run their team. this is the responsibility of their administration/parents/and players.

If any of these rules are EVER enacted I CAN guarantee I will forget them very easily. I only want to police the practice of a fair game -- not a morally upstanding game. The team getting their azzes handed to them share just as much responsibility for sucking as the team that is very good. And I can say that from coaching some teams with no skill whatsoever and getting my azz handed to me. ITS LIFE.

So, Chuck, this thread has been up for 72 hours. Has anyone sent any "finished product" yet?

How will lowering the foul counts to reach the bonus sooner speed up the game?

Pretty simple...lower count, FTs sooner, FTs stop the clock, every time the clock is stopped the game takes LONGER.:rolleyes:

I meant instead of 10 seconds to shoot the FT, lower it to 7 seconds or some # below 10, or just do away with it all together.

Yeah, I rarely call 10 seconds in the BC, so let's lower that to 7 too.

I usually hit between 3 and 4 on all my 5 second counts, so hey let's make that one 3.5 to save time as well.:rolleyes:

If you did away with it all together there would be no limit to the amount of time the FTer could take.

Reduce it to 7 seconds...? Why? Do all of the FTs in your game take the full 10 seconds?

Here's another good one for Rocky to chime in...

I disagree. We are the moral police. We judge what is fair and acceptable versus unacceptable. When a team is ahead by 40 and still pressing the other team up the court. For some of us, obviously not you Deecee, a moral flag goes up that says this is not right.

I disagree again. If we are talking college or the pros, okay, this makes sense. But we are talking kids in high school. Your position encourages the very thing we don't want. We don't want our children to group up without any class to themselves. To often, and I don't agree with this, but far too often we hear about coaches and referee's using bb as a tool to teach life lessons. Well, what lesson or you teaching when you run the score up on your opponent who you are obviously better then?

Here's the reason why I want to see Peyton Manning win the Superbowl. He is such a class act. Do you remember a game, I believe it was 2 years ago. Peyton had marched the Colts down the field late in the game and had a chance to score another TD. The Colts didn't need the touchdown because they had the game in hand. Peyton either threw the football OOB to the back of the endzone or he kneel the ball, I can't remember which. But it was 4th down. This is class. This is what we should be about when teaching our youths. I for one am not in the camp of leaving this responsibly solely to the school or administration. We as officials can do something about it too in case some programs goes afoul.

How about Old School's ideas for calling technical fouls on fans? That fits in too. Rocky?

Can you give a flagrant technical foul to a fan?

Potential #3 here, but there are so many to choose from I hate to decide so quickly.

It's already in the rules JR, no need to modify this.:)

Only the free throw shooter.

It's called sarcasm...like most things about officiating, we found something else you don't understand.

Whatever....

right because the colts have NOT won a game by more than 7 points since Manning joined the team. you sure he wasnt trying to avoid a sack.

it is the PARENTS responsibility to teach LIFE lessons -- coaches that do and that teach morality and good sportsmanship are a bonus not a necessity that we should worry about. we enforce the rules as they pertain to each team having a fair playing field -- it is not the GOOD teams fault that they are good -- its the natural imbalance of abilities that will always dictate that -- that and PREPAREDNESS some teams just are POORLY coached -- why not T up the coach for not preparing their team.

old please post a picture of yourself in your official gear holding up a piece of paper that says basketballofficial.com and post here -- I am as open minded as they come and you have managed to make me agree with JR, Nevada, Dan and many others that I try very hard to disagree with :) - A cookie isnt enough for you you need a brownie.

This statement doesn't surprise me after learning your position on this topic. Drive it down there throats, don't let up until the game is over. Funny how America tends to not like teams like this.

No, no...I'm done...check out my #3 under the OOB thread...it's perfect and fulfills the terms of my penance beautifully!! :p

last i checked america likes winners -- no matter the cost.

I think OS is trying to form a group of super officials that do everything -- from officiate, to coach, to play the game, to manage the game/stands/fans/table, to do the scorekeeping, to man the cameras for all the televised games, to sell the popcorn

i just have one question is it going to be a 2-man or 3-man super crew that will do all this?

Change KICKING definition
 

Current Rule:
"Rule 4 Section 29 - Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot."

Proposed Change:
"Rule 4 Section 29 - Kicking the ball is intentionally contacting it with any part of the leg or foot."

Affected Case Plays:
Change title of "4.29 Situation" to "4.29 Situation A."
Addition of "4.29 Situation B: A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession of the ball. RULING: A1 has committed a kicking violation. The intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg. Although A1 did not strike the ball with any part of the leg, the player did gain an illegal advantage by intentionally contacting the ball with the leg(s). (4-29)"

Thank you, Chuck.

No doubt, it's the "no matter the cost" that scares me.

Officials Manual Changes
 

Change Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Two Officials - Fouls - 233 (completely) to read:
233. Free Official:
a. Freeze field of vision to observe players until the reporting official turns to observe players.
b. Ignore the ball while the foul is being reported.
c. Anticipate anything unusual relative to the next play, such as, but not limited to, false double or double fouls, one of two shots, change of side, etc.
d. After the foul is reported and the reporting official is observing players from new position, while keepinig the players in view, secure the ball and move to the proper position for the ensuing play.
e. Do not run through the players.
f. If free throw(s) is to be taken, insure the proper free thrower is on the line.

Change Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Two Officials - Fouls - 234 (completely) to read:
234. Switching Principles:
a. The official who calls the foul remains as Trail.
b. There is no switch on a foul in the backcourt going to the frontcourt.

Thanks again, Chuck.

You must be one of those "defeat at any cost" Americans.

Change BASKET INTERFERENCE definition
 

Current Rule:
Rule 4 SECTION 6 BASKET INTERFERENCE
Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART. 1 . . . Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket.
ART. 2 . . . Touches the ball while any part of the ball is within the imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base.
EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.
ART. 3 . . . Touches the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.
ART. 4 . . . Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Proposed change:
SECTION 6 BASKET INTERFERENCE
Basket interference occurs when a player:
ART. 1 . . . Touches the ball or any part of the basket (excluding the net) while the ball is on or within either basket.
ART. 2 . . . Touches the ball while any part of the ball is within the imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base.
EXCEPTION: In Arts. 1 or 2, if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters a basket cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference.
ART. 3 . . . Touches the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.
ART. 4 . . . Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.
ART. 5 . . . Pulls down the net, and in doing so, pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Other Affected Rules (per language used): None.

Affected Case Plays:

Current Case Play:
9.11.1 Situation D: The ball is on the ring of Team A's basket when A1 hits the net. RULING: Basket interference by A1. No goal. The ball became dead when A1 touched the net as it is part of the basket. (4-6; 6-7-9)

Proposed Change:
9.11.1 Situation D: The ball is on the ring of Team A's basket when A1 hits the net. RULING: No violation. Play continues. Simply contacting the net while the ball is on the ring is not basket interference. (4-6)

Eliminate 9.11.1 Situation F.

Again, thank you, Chuck.

Change SWEATBANDS location worn restriction
 

Current Rule:
3-5-3-c. Sweatbands must be worn below the elbow and may be a maximum of 4 inches (except for logo, see 3-6).

Proposed Change:
3-5-3-c. Sweatbands may be worn anywhere on the arm and may be a maximum of 4 inches (except for logo, see 3-6).

Other Affected Rules: None.

Affected Case Plays: None.

Thank you again, CE.

Team control on throw in.

7 on free throw shots is interesting but if WE don't mess around getting the shooter the ball, we can help in this aspect. Takes 3-5 seconds max to sweep and bounce.

Eliminate the ability to sub after 2nd made free throw.

2-man - call foul - stay at table
2-man - no long switch

Good to hear back from you Chuck!

this is not a rule, but maybe a suggestion to recommend a 3 man for all High school level. To include Fr, JV . The lower levels is where you need the extra pair of eyes..

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.
2) Add an official warning for a coach violating the coaching box rules.
3) Expand definition of team control to include holding the ball OOB for a throw-in.
4) 2 FTs for any common foul beginning with the team's 7th foul of the half.
5) TO shall not be granted to a head coach unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.
6) Violation for the inbounder delaying his return to the court.
7) Change penalty for Substitute Technicals to include indirect on head coach.
8) Add "gray shirt" to approved uniform for officials.
9) Eliminate the jump ball (I can't tell if Billy was serious about that one).
10) Eliminate or reduce the 10-second count during FTs.
11) Re-word 9-9-1.
12) Revise the kicking definition to include "contact" instead of "striking".
13) Revise the definition of BI to exclude contact with the net and include pulling on the net, causing the rim to move.
14) Revise sweatband requirements.
15) Prohibit substitutions after the final FT of a multiple throw.
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?

Let me throw out one of my own and see what anybody thinks. How about clearing the team fouls at the beginning of each OT period. That way, you're not shooting FTs from the first whistle in OT. Shoot the bonus on the 3rd team foul of each OT.

Anybody like this? I know it goes against the concept of "OT is just an extension of the fourth quarter". Somebody mentioned it to me and I thought I'd throw it out there. I kind of like it.

Also, I'm kind of surprised that there's no outcry for going to the POI for technical fouls. That's been a pretty common suggestion in years past, I think.

Rumor is this will change with the Officals Manual next season to be in line with 3-man mechanics.

I do not like the mechanic in 3-man where Lead calls an offensive foul in front court, goes to report, then returns to inbound the ball. Lead should stay at table and become new center or trail with other official taking the inbounds. The current mechanic delays the game and puts too much attention on the Lead. Get the ball inbounds and go.

madcity it doesnt delay the game -- blow the whistle take a few steps in to make the call -- return to your spot and go. -- it will take a while if you run all the way to about 8-10 feet from the table do your mechanics and then slowly turn around and go back to your spot. but IMO just clear the players -- make eye contact make your call and signal and move on.

Don't like dropping the team fouls for overtimes. You're trying to make the game like the pro's. It's not needed at this level. Plus, so many people; table personnel, officials know this procedure. You're talking retraining and for what? It will not make the game any better.

Believe it or not. I like the idea that a team should lose the ball on a technical. It seems the message to not get any technical fouls or screw around with the ref's. High school ball should not be played like pro ball. I like the seat belt rule. You go and change that, it won't be long before we lose the seat belt,imo.

Rule Book & Officials Manual Change: Change Signal # 31 - "Blocking"
 

Signal Chart Change: Change Signal # 31 - "Blocking" from open/cupped hands to fists on hips. (Same rationale as change of signal # 28 prior to 2004-05 season - "fist conveys more strength.")

I don't think ChuckE was talking to you, OS.

Officials Manual Change (x4)
 

220 Currently Reads:

Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Two Officials - Throw-In
220. The administering official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower and move to observe the action unless the throw-in is following a successful goal. This in no way lessens the importance of adhering to the nearest spot/designated spot. When adminstering throw-ins on the side line, a bounce is recommended. When adminstering throw-ins on the end line and remaining in the front court, handing the ball to the thrower is recommended. If the throw-in is after a goal, the thrower should be allowed a reasonable time to secure the ball at the end line after which the five-second count is started. The count shall be silent and visible. The administering official shall sound the whistle to indicate play is about to begin only following a charged time-out, an intermission or an unusual delay. If the clock has been stopped, the adminstering official should signal to start the clock when the released ball touches a player who is inbounds.

Proposed Changes:

Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Two Officials - Throw-In
220. The administering official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower and move to observe the action unless the throw-in is following a successful goal. This in no way lessens the importance of adhering to the nearest spot/designated spot. When adminstering throw-ins on the side line, a bounce is recommended. When adminstering throw-ins on the end line and remaining in the front court, handing the ball to the thrower is recommended. If the throw-in is after a goal, the thrower should be allowed a reasonable time to secure the ball at the end line after which the five-second count is started. The count shall be silent and visible. The administering official shall sound the whistle to indicate play is about to begin only following a charged time-out, an intermission, an unusual delay, or when the throwing team is on the end line of their frontcourt after the clock has been stopped. If the clock has been stopped, the adminstering official, and the Trail, if Lead is the administering official, should signal to start the clock when the released ball touches a player who is inbounds.


333 Currently Reads:

Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Three Officials - Throw-In
333. The administering official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower and move to observe the action unless the throw-in is following a successful goal. This in no way lessens the importance of adhering to the nearest spot/designated spot. When administering throw-ins on the side line, a bounce is recommended. When administering throw-ins on the end line and remaining in the front court, handing the ball to the thrower is recommended. If the throw-in is after a goal, the thrower should be allowed a reasonable time to secure the ball at the end line after which the five-second count is started. The count shall be silent and visible. The administering official shall sound the whistle to indicate play is about to begin only following a charged time-out, an intermission or an unusual delay. If the clock has been stopped, the adminstering official should signal to start the clock when the released ball touches a player who is inbounds.

Proposed Changes:

Basic Procedures and Mechanics - Three Officials - Throw-In
333. The administering official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower and move to observe the action unless the throw-in is following a successful goal. This in no way lessens the importance of adhering to the nearest spot/designated spot. When administering throw-ins on the side line, a bounce is recommended. When administering thro-ins on the end line and remaining in the front court, handing the ball to the thrower is recommended. If the throw-in is after a goal, the thrower should be allowed a reasonable time to secure the ball at the end line after which the five-second count is started. The count shall be silent and visible. The administering official shall sound the whistle to indicate play is about to begin only following a charged time-out, an intermission, an unusual delay, or when the throwing team is on the end line of their frontcourt after the clock has been stopped. If the clock has been stopped, the adminstering official, and the Trail, if Lead is the administering official, should signal to start the clock when the released ball touches a player who is inbounds.


Affected Rules: None.

Affected Case Plays: None.


(Can you tell I've been home sick for two days?)

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

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

To address a pet peeve of mine. :D

Very Good
 

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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. :(

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?

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.

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

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

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.