2009-2010 rule changes

[Lcubed48]

1) The coaches can only request TO's during dead ball situations.
2) The color of a team's headbands must all be the same color - whatever color that maybe.
3) The color of a team's undershirts must all be the same color - whatever color that maybe.
4) Change the PC proviso to end on the release of the try or tap.
5) I, also, like the request to not grant a TO when there is a change of status about to occur. (Yes, it would be a return to yesteryear.)

I did not serve "T" this season to any coach. My biggest problem with coaches this season was with the requesting and granting of TO's during live ball situations. One can only wish and hope!

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Beige was chosen because it is (or at least was) the most common color sold. This color was chosen so teams didn't have to buy special pre-wrap to be properly equipped. I'm sure the committee was looking out for the not well funded school districts in making this determination. It's really not a huge deal as long as all officials apply the rule correctly.

-Josh

Josh,
This issue was BY FAR THE biggest issue we had in pre-game of girls varsity games during the course of the season. MANY (decently-funded) schools had ONE COLOR of pre-wrap (the primary color of their ROAD uniform). It was an incredible hassle to make these girls take the head bands (that were really hair restraints, BUT went all the way around the head) off before the game. As the season went on, it got better, BUT, we still had teams during the last quarter of the season with wrong-colored pre-wrap. My point is that if the NFHS is concerned about costs when allowing "the most common color", why not just frickin allow the team's secondary color of pre-wrap?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Josh,
This issue was BY FAR THE biggest issue we had in pre-game of girls varsity games during the course of the season. MANY (decently-funded) schools had ONE COLOR of pre-wrap (the primary color of their ROAD uniform). It was an incredible hassle to make these girls take the head bands (that were really hair restraints, BUT went all the way around the head) off before the game. As the season went on, it got better, BUT, we still had teams during the last quarter of the season with wrong-colored pre-wrap. My point is that if the NFHS is concerned about costs when allowing "the most common color", why not just frickin allow the team's secondary color of pre-wrap?

Not a hassle for me. "Coach, those headbands are illegal." How hard was that?

Not even a hassle to explain the rule: "White, black, beige, or the primary uniform color; everyone must match."

People get their shorts knotted over all this, and I just don't get it. Do you whine so much about moving the players in the lane above the blocks? It's just a rule to enforce, and it's easier than it used to be. Sheesh.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Josh,
This issue was BY FAR THE biggest issue we had in pre-game of girls varsity games during the course of the season. MANY (decently-funded) schools had ONE COLOR of pre-wrap (the primary color of their ROAD uniform). It was an incredible hassle to make these girls take the head bands (that were really hair restraints, BUT went all the way around the head) off before the game. As the season went on, it got better, BUT, we still had teams during the last quarter of the season with wrong-colored pre-wrap. My point is that if the NFHS is concerned about costs when allowing "the most common color", why not just frickin allow the team's secondary color of pre-wrap?

Then is sounds like everyone in the area is not applying the rules consistently. There were a few schools around here that had trouble figuring out the headband rule but once it was a few weeks into the season, it wasn't an issue any longer..."Coach, you are not complaint with the headband rule. Please address that with your team".

-Josh

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LDUB

For many that would mean standing with one foot on the division line every time play moves to the opposite end of the court. I'm not against expanding the size of the box but I really don't see a need to.

I'm nearly certain that CMCoach meant to extend the box toward (in fact, to) the end-line, not toward the division line.

The box would then be the same size as the NCAA box.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

On the shot clock idea, I don't like it. I've seen scorer's tables that can barely keep up with the AP arrow and the game clock. Adding a shot clock would cause all kinds of problems.

Really?

We use a shot clock in new York and it causes, well, almost no problems. Sure, you ahve the occasional guy who falls asleep and doesnt start or reset it properly, but nothing major, really.

Problems with the operation of the shot clock are really a non-issue. I would guess the expense would be the major problem.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Really?

We use a shot clock in new York and it causes, well, almost no problems. Sure, you ahve the occasional guy who falls asleep and doesnt start or reset it properly, but nothing major, really.

Problems with the operation of the shot clock are really a non-issue. I would guess the expense would be the major problem.

Expense and the fact that it doesn't allow coaches to make the best use of whatever talent happens to be at the school that year. If a HS team has a better chance of winning by taking the air out of the ball, they should be allowed to try to do so.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Expense and the fact that it doesn't allow coaches to make the best use of whatever talent happens to be at the school that year. If a HS team has a better chance of winning by taking the air out of the ball, they should be allowed to try to do so.

Agreed. The stall games are so rare they aren't really a problem.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not a hassle for me. "Coach, those headbands are illegal." How hard was that?

Not even a hassle to explain the rule: "White, black, beige, or the primary uniform color; everyone must match."

People get their shorts knotted over all this, and I just don't get it. Do you whine so much about moving the players in the lane above the blocks? It's just a rule to enforce, and it's easier than it used to be. Sheesh.

Hassle is perhaps not the proper term. I would guess that 50 - 80% of the girls games I did this year, we had to go to the head coach (or the player) and have them remove the headband. State situation: easy; explain rule: easy; having to force girls to remove the items/scramble to find the proper headbands put coaches in a foul mood to start the game.

Moving players up a position: easy. It is a rule. It is enforced equally for each game. This situation varies significantly from the headband/hair restraint rule.

Purpose of headband: Stop sweat from getting into eyes -- secondarily, it looks "cool".

Purpose of pre-wrap going around head: keep hair out of face and under control (in reality it SHOULD fit under the category of hair control device, BUT since it goes around the head, it doesn't). Secondarily, it does NOT look "cool" -- it serves a purpose. Since many officials apparently did NOT enforce the rule -- why else would we have the issue in the 18th, 19th and 20th games of the season? -- it creates unnecessary stress between players, coaches and officials before the game starts.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Hassle is perhaps not the proper term. I would guess that 50 - 80% of the girls games I did this year, we had to go to the head coach (or the player) and have them remove the headband. State situation: easy; explain rule: easy; having to force girls to remove the items/scramble to find the proper headbands put coaches in a foul mood to start the game.

Still don't get it. I don't force them to do anything. I tell them that they can't play until they comply with the rule.

And I don't care what mood they're in.

[BayStateRef]

It is no big deal. Enforce the rule. Watch how fast a roll of beige or black pre-wrap is found. It is a rule and the coaches should know it. If other officials do not enforce the rule, what other rules are they setting aside? I have partners who don't like this rule and want to ignore it, but my assignors have told me to enforce it and I do.

If the NFHS wants to allow the secondary color or any color (as long as they all match) to be legal...fine. But I don't care if the rule is changed or not. BTW...I also have seen "illegal" colors in 80% or more of my games (all varsity) this year. I had one team who wore the "alternate" color during warmups and when I told the captains they were illegal, they said they knew that and would change to white before the game started. They did.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Hassle is perhaps not the proper term. I would guess that 50 - 80% of the girls games I did this year, we had to go to the head coach (or the player) and have them remove the headband. State situation: easy; explain rule: easy; having to force girls to remove the items/scramble to find the proper headbands put coaches in a foul mood to start the game.

Moving players up a position: easy. It is a rule. It is enforced equally for each game. This situation varies significantly from the headband/hair restraint rule.

Purpose of headband: Stop sweat from getting into eyes -- secondarily, it looks "cool".

Purpose of pre-wrap going around head: keep hair out of face and under control (in reality it SHOULD fit under the category of hair control device, BUT since it goes around the head, it doesn't). Secondarily, it does NOT look "cool" -- it serves a purpose. Since many officials apparently did NOT enforce the rule -- why else would we have the issue in the 18th, 19th and 20th games of the season? -- it creates unnecessary stress between players, coaches and officials before the game starts.

As late as the last week of the season, the JV officials did not enforce the rule. One of the first things we check when we go on the floor is headbands, pre-wrap, etc. If the colors are not legal, we inform the coach right off. Some protest [usually "We were told if it matches the trim..."] and usually, but not always, it is the home team that has the problem. I keep it simple. On the road you have 4 choices. At home you have only 3. If it is not taken care of in the first game, it sets a bad example for the 2nd game. And if you wait till there is 2 minutes to go, then it becomes more of a distraction to the coach and last minute instructions for the team before tipoff.

[Joel Poli]

Make "grasping" the ring legal, but "hanging" on the ring a T.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Team A has team control in their backcourt. They request and are granted a timeout. When they subsequently inbound in the backcourt, why not have the 10 second count pick up from where it left off instead of resetting? What's the logic about them getting extra time to get the ball across just because they got a timeout?

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

1. Delayed entry to court after inbounding ball becomes a violation rather than a way to avoid OT. I think this would be called more often if the penalty were not so severe. It could be an exception to other delays in returning to the court.

2. Compression sleeves. The 'medical' loophole is a crock. They are decorative. Either outlaw them, make them legal, or make them legal complying with the other fashion police items.

3. TO by HC during dead ball only.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

A rule that states that if the clock is stopped, and if a timeout is requested (seemingly) at the same time that possession is gained, a set amount of time comes off the clock, such as 0.3s.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Another one that comes up from time to time is giving a team that's in the bonus the option of shooting free throws when fouled or just inbounding the ball. This eliminates the incentive for the other team to keep fouling when they are behind.

Originally Posted by jkumpire

1. Get rid of all the uniform rules that officials have to enforce during a game.
2. Get rid of all uniform rules that officials have to enforce during a game.
3. Get rid of all rules that turn officials into the fashion police.

Originally Posted by nine01c

I would like to see "Flopping" become a delayed dead ball. Allow the offensive player A to continue his try for goal (usually a lay-up). If successful, score the goal. Whether successful of not, call the FLOP a violation and give the ball back to A.

This is supposed to be called a Technical Foul (due to unsporting act) but is rarely called due to the severity of the penalty. This is similar to the swinging of the elbows (without contact) and running out of bounds (to avoid a pick) which were both changed from a T to a violation a few years ago. Officials were also reluctant to call these acts Technical Fouls.

I think this change would clean up the Flopping when players decide they don't want to lose possession of the ball (again). Just an idea.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I'll bring up the one I've suggested for the last 2 years: allow a team to "decline" a free throw penalty and accept a throw in instead (at the spot of the foul). This would cut down on fouling at the end of the game and, more importantly, keep the game moving through the last 2 minutes if there is a foul.

Remove the option of state associations to expand or delete the coaching box. Make it as written in Rule 1 for everyone. It isn't just to let coaches run free. Even though we (in Texas) have a 6 foot box (that UIL won't change), we generally allow the coaches to move down the bench to talk to their players. Technically, we shouldn't, but I feel strongly we should allow this. Besides, we have all kinds of court sizes and where the coach is or should be is often hard to determine. Under the Fed rule as written, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have two:
Make it so the AP arrow only gives the team the ball at their disposal for a throwin, rather than a complete throwin. Flip the arrow when it's at the disposal of the thrower, as all action after that is a direct result of the throwin and in my opinion the AP has done it's job.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Second, with the advent of the 3 point shot 2 decades ago, teams gain a huge advantage by essentially trading a (potentially) 2 shot foul for a 3 point attempt (everything else going as planned). Unless we can come up with a third bonus free throw after, say, 12 fouls, or eliminate the 1 and 1 and go to 2 shots at 7 fouls and 3 shots at 10 (something I'd be willing to discuss), then this is nothing but an advantage for a team that, again, commits a rules infraction.

Originally Posted by eyezen

Two halves.

Stop clock in the 2nd half (see above) under a minute.

Originally Posted by AKOFL

How about held ball goes to the defence? Keep the arrow for the quarters but reward the defence for their hard work.
Player control fouls gone, all become team control fouls.
How can you commit a player control foul when you don't have the ball anymore. (airbourn shooter after release) This needs to change to be more like college.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Usually, when we have a post about NF rule changes, at least one person suggests allowing players along the FT lane to go in on the release. How do you guys feel about that?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No more jump balls to start the game, or overtime. Flip a coin, or give the ball to the visitors to start the game, and use the alternating possession arrow for the rest of the game.

Coaches may not request a timeout. Only one of the players on the court.

Originally Posted by dbking

1. Allow players along the lane to go on release

2. Allow the 28' coaching box and then enforce. The 6' definitely does not work( KS ), the 14' works much better ( MO ).

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

How about resetting the team fouls at the start of each quarter and shooting the bonus on the 4th team foul of the quarter (automatic bonus on the 6th)? You still get 6 common fouls in each half where you don't shoot the 1-and-1, but this way you ensure that you're never shooting the bonus for an entire quarter. I hate getting to the second quarter and saying, "Ok, 1-and-1 the rest of the way".

I'd also like to see the team foul reset at the beginning of each extra period, as well, but I don't think that would ever fly.

Originally Posted by zm1283

1. I've been thinking the same thing most of this thread. Doesn't the NBA do something similar? This could also help in speeding the game up, so we're not shooting 1 and 1 at the start of the second and fourth quarters. I'm in full support of this one.

2. Only let coaches call TO during dead balls. I hate the misunderstandings that happen when they're allowed to call TO during live balls, and I don't like being distracted by it either.

Originally Posted by Cleefy

I'm not familiar with your rules, however, I'll throw a couple of points into this thread:

1. FIBA will be moving to an Americanized set of rules in 2010 and 2012. Starting with a no-charge semi circle, a rectangular key-way and a 14 and 24 second reset on our shot clock depending on what occurs.

Secondly, I agree with giving a heldball to the defensive team, however, if the held ball is occured after a looseball situation - including a shot, we should simply consult the AP arrow.

Thirdly, I don't know how often this happens in your neck of the woods, and whether you all have a rule about it, but heres what I'd like to see:

Player A1 is close to a boundary line, with the ball, closely guarded by B1. A1 is stuck with no pass, and cannot dribble, so they throw the ball, intentionally off B1. In my book, this should be a turnover by A1, and not an out of bounds by B1...

Originally Posted by JLMatthew

Fed: Add shot clock...team control on throw-in when at the disposal of thrower

NCAA-M: Airborn shooter to match Fed rule.

Originally Posted by just another ref

As fueled by discussion in another thread, add "official gives the ball to the wrong team" to the correctable error list. Although I have never seen this happen at a crucial point in any game, if it did, obviously the consequences could be huge.

Originally Posted by ranjo

Eliminate 8 minute quarters and go to 16 minute halves.

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Pie in the sky, but hey, I can dream like everyone else, right

1-17: Also include an 8 foot substitution box (a la the NBA) for substitutes to report to before they can enter a game.

2-11: Male the penalty for removing the official book from the table that of the NCAA.

4-10: Add language similar to NCAA to clarify that if an offensive player is between a player with the ball and the defensive player, No closely guarded situation exists.

4-12: Have team control match up with NCAA.

Originally Posted by Lcubed48

1) The coaches can only request TO's during dead ball situations.
2) The color of a team's headbands must all be the same color - whatever color that maybe.
3) The color of a team's undershirts must all be the same color - whatever color that maybe.
4) Change the PC proviso to end on the release of the try or tap.
5) I, also, like the request to not grant a TO when there is a change of status about to occur. (Yes, it would be a return to yesteryear.)

I did not serve "T" this season to any coach. My biggest problem with coaches this season was with the requesting and granting of TO's during live ball situations. One can only wish and hope!

Originally Posted by Joel Poli

Make "grasping" the ring legal, but "hanging" on the ring a T.

To read them in one place.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Still don't get it. I don't force them to do anything. I tell them that they can't play until they comply with the rule.

And I don't care what mood they're in.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. We get into semantics about "force" -- truth is, the girls are there to PLAY, if they want to PLAY, they are FORCED to take off the off-colored shrinkwrap.

To each his own, but I much prefer to enjoy my night of officiating as opposed to making it a 90 minute meeting with an enemy.