NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[just another ref]

I say leave the free throws alone. If you go back to the release, you have a wrestling match in the lane on even the successful free throws.

[JRutledge]

Are you sure this was in 1993? I was officiating when this was changed back from the release to the "hit." I think it was later in the 90s?

Peace

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you sure this was in 1993? I was officiating when this was changed back from the release to the "hit." I think it was later in the 90s?

Peace

NFHS Handbook has the change back to the hit in 1997

[SNIPERBBB]

I'd like to see the elbow-to-head issue put into words in the book instead of as a constant POE. This would let us talk about other stupid cap in our meetings instead of just the elbows.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you sure this was in 1993? I was officiating when this was changed back from the release to the "hit." I think it was later in the 90s?

Peace

Rut:

I didn't climb up into the attic to check, but I knew the 1981 (actually the 1980-81 season I do believe) date was correct, but I knew that the change back to "hit" was done in the 1990's but did not remember it was in the late 1990's and not the early 1990's.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

I didn't climb up into the attic to check, but I knew the 1981 (actually the 1980-81 season I do believe) date was correct, but I knew that the change back to "hit" was done in the 1990's but did not remember it was in the late 1990's and not the early 1990's.

MTD, Sr.

All I knew is that I was officiating with the rule one way and it changed to the old way (which I did not realize was a old rule at the time of the current rule change).

Peace

[RefCT]

I am quite obviously late to the party and will throw my $0.02 in anyway.

My gut says the NFHS won't make any major rules changes as the past couple of years have been minor tweaks because (I think they said) they feel high school basketball is in a good place. (I offer that without opinion).

What I would like to see:
1. Coaches can't call TO's (this will never happen). Justification is obvious for this one. If I were in front of the committee, I would ask - are you more concerned about player safety or coaches being able to call a TO? Player safety is an issue if we have to take our eyes off the players during a scrum for a loose ball.
2. Substitutions are allowed before free throws for a Technical foul. Justification - these are kids and kids (and adults) are not the best at keeping a level head when they are fired up. Let the coach take the kid out immediately after he/she is given a T so something stupid doesn't cause them to miss the next game too. I've seen a couple higher level Varsity games where a kid gets a T (unsporting) and just goes and sits on his bench anyway. Sometimes the officials will just let a sub come in at some point so they don't have to go interrupt the coach talking him/her down. Why keep a player in there if the coach is going to sub him out anyway?

Interested in what people think about the 2nd one. The first one has been discussed already.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I'd like to see the elbow-to-head issue put into words in the book instead of as a constant POE.

Agree. SNIPERBBB is correct, it's not in the rulebook. It needs to be added to the definition of an intentional foul, and needs to be even clearer than when it was "just" a point of emphasis.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefCT

2. Substitutions are allowed before free throws for a Technical foul. Justification - these are kids and kids (and adults) are not the best at keeping a level head when they are fired up. Let the coach take the kid out immediately after he/she is given a T so something stupid doesn't cause them to miss the next game too. I've seen a couple higher level Varsity games where a kid gets a T (unsporting) and just goes and sits on his bench anyway. Sometimes the officials will just let a sub come in at some point so they don't have to go interrupt the coach talking him/her down. Why keep a player in there if the coach is going to sub him out anyway?

Interested in what people think about the 2nd one. The first one has been discussed already.

The second one is already the rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Technical foul ... Why keep a player in there if the coach is going to sub him out anyway?

Are you talking about multiple fee throws? Remember this is a technical foul that we're discussing, so substitutions can be made at any time. Restrictions on substitutions are limited to personal fouls.

3-3-1-C: During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls, substitutions
may be made only before the final attempt in the sequence and after the
final attempt has been converted.
EXCEPTION: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering
the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter
the game.

Or am I way out in left field and missing something here?

[Adam]

Handing out fish again, Billy?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All I knew is that I was officiating with the rule one way and it changed to the old way (which I did not realize was a old rule at the time of the current rule change).

Peace

Boy! There is no pleasing you young'uns, LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Handing out fish again, Billy?

If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.

If you teach a man to fish, he'll learn to sit in a boat all day and drink beer with his friends.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you talking about multiple fee throws? Remember this is a technical foul that we're discussing, so substitutions can be made at any time. Restrictions on substitutions are limited to personal fouls.

3-3-1-C: During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls, substitutions
may be made only before the final attempt in the sequence and after the
final attempt has been converted.
EXCEPTION: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering
the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter
the game.

Or am I way out in left field and missing something here?

B1 is whistled for fouling A1 in the act of shooting. The try is unsuccessful. B1 doesn't like the call and protests to the official which results in a technical foul on B1. By rule, when do you permit Team B's coach to substitute for B1?

I believe that this is what the poster had in mind, even though he wasn't able to express it clearly.

I'm sure APG would be in favor of changing the terminology from "center" to "slot" :P