We don't need no stinkin' new rules - or do we?
 

OK - now that the new NFHS rules have been posted for the 2007-2008 season, let's list the rules they SHOULD have changed.

I'll start with this one. Let's eliminate the term "intentional foul" and replace it with a "flagrant level one". The penalty would remain the same. We all know there are many times we call an intentional for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. I don't think there's anything wrong with making this call, but the terminology is confusing. We should go to the NBA rule of having level one and level two flagrants, with level two including ejection. It really wouldn't be a "rule" change, just a "terminology" change.

Others???

Limit a coach to calling a time-out only during a dead ball.

You mean you want to give coaches the authority to CALL timeouts???????:eek:

Check that! May request a time-out.

iirc, it was on the list but was voted down (and I'm ignoring the "calling" v. "requesting" issue)

I think this is nuts. There are situations where "intentional fouls" are not flagrant and should not be labeled as such.

I don't necessarily think that NBA rules, and the way officials interpret and call them is something I want high school athletics and/or officials at this level to aspire to.

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.

oops - I meant PF's not PC's

What I was trying to address were the situations in which we call an "intentional" when it really is a flagrant when it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of including ejection.

Ok, - I understand - but isn't that just a personal foul? I have been to our required state meetings where it has been emphasized that personal fouls can sometimes be violent in nature as far as contact is concerned, but NOT flagrant or intentional. My point is that instead of changing terminology - just to call it appropriately. I don't think that changing terminology is going to change the way excess contact is called. JMO :-)

How about a rule where the coach is not permitted to speak to the officials?

A long time ago coaches were not permitted to even coach their players during games, only sit on the bench quietly. I saw a copy of a news item where coaches were first permitted to coach during timeouts (might have been in Springfield at the Hall of Fame, don't remember). Ahh, the good old days.

I think the terminology change might actually allow for more calls. By rule, the intentional foul can be called based on the severity of the contact regardless of intent. However, a lot of officials are slow to call this because they get hung up on the word "intentional."

sometimes, but a foul can also be intentional based solely on the severity.

How about we keep the terminology we already have, but ADD the flagrant level one. That way, a foul could still be "intentional" with the penalty even if the contact is not flagrant in any way.

So you'd have two different fouls, with two different names, with exactly the same penalty?

Coach: How can that be an intentional foul? I know both of the shooter's arms are broken, but my player was going for the ball.