New NFHS Rules Approved For 2014-2015

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Oh.

Well they already (maybe just my state) had made it clear that we were to follow previous guidelines on hand-checking and body contact. So at least in my state were were beat over the head with this just last year for example. There was a whole webnar over the issue in my state. So for us this will be business as usual around here. But I realize that was not a NF POE or constant discussion point.

Peace

Agreed. There was a real push here on the whole RSBQ concept, so it's not really a lot different. What I think it will do is clearly outline for everyone what contact is not allowed - hopefully it will lead to better consistency in the way games are called.

As others have said, I am also at somewhat of a loss to understand what the intent of the change in the intentional foul definition was - seems it didn't really change anything. Guess we'll have to wait & see what the actual wording and accompanying interp say.....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RefCT

I think this is only in CT (or maybe other states that have adopted this). I believe the NFHS rule says they can be different colors between the arm and leg, but must be consistent colors across the team.

Can someone confirm this? I could be wrong and don't have my book with me to confirm either way.

When they come out with the actual wording, they might also change the "matching" restrictions.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

When they come out with the actual wording, they might also change the "matching" restrictions.

The Connecticut IAABO State Board decided to make all (headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves) match in color to make it easier for officials, coaches, and players to "understand" the rule.

Result: They didn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The Connecticut IAABO State Board decided to make all (headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, and leg sleeves) match in color to make it easier for officials, coaches, and players to "understand" the rule.

Result: They didn't.

I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

They actually are at the school my kids attend, for the girls at least. The girls like to wear headbands and the coach orders them all and they are all the same color. He does this because he knows the rule.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am sure most officials did not care. They do not care in this state too.

I wish the NF would realize that these things are not provided by the schools or teams anymore than socks or shoes are not provided either.

Peace

FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .

1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

Current average around here seems to be about 2.72.
Until it's totally abolished, I'd be happy with 3.01. Even a 2.98.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

They actually are at the school my kids attend, for the girls at least. The girls like to wear headbands and the coach orders them all and they are all the same color. He does this because he knows the rule.

I am not suggesting that there are absolutely no schools that offer these things, but the vast majority of schools have little budget for these things at the high school level for sure and if a player is wearing these things they likely bought them on their own. And if that was not the case, then I would not see so many coaches saying to us here, "I told him he could not wear that." But it is funny, we were not allowed to wear anything without approval or knowledge of the coach when I played. Times have certainly changed.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .

1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

Current average around here seems to be about 2.72.
Until it's totally abolished, I'd be happy with 3.01. Even a 2.98.

If my state did not make a big deal about uniform issues and as a result penalize officials negatively in post season assignments for these issues, I would be at #1. Because I like working in the post season and want to accomplish some things, I choose to enforce it, even over the top of what others might do.

Peace

[PG_Ref]

Does the rule for sleeves suggest that the "medical" requirement is going away?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

Does the rule for sleeves suggest that the "medical" requirement is going away?

It seems to, but it isn't entirely clear....and I hope so.

[bainsey]

Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

Originally Posted by bainsey

Any personal thoughts about this?

Too hard to judge accurately (for HS officials anyway) and results in too many "default" blocks that should be charges.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

It's not on the gather. It's on the upward motion of the ball to shoot or pass the ball. The gather precedes the upward motion. YOu should also clarify that the rule change only applied to NCAA-M. NCAA-W, for now, is the same (with regard to the deciding point) as NFHS.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Now that the NFHS has adopted an NCAA rule (lane violations), I've been curious whether it would adopt another.

Specifically, I'm talking about the rule where a defender must establish LGP before the shooter leaves the floor (NFHS), as opposed to when the shooter gathers the ball (NCAA). Any idea if this has ever been on the table? Any personal thoughts about this?

No idea, but my personal thoughts on it are largely negative.

"Largely" may be a bit of an understatement.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

FASHION POLICE MATRIX . . .
1 - Officials who don't care and don't enforce
3 - Officials who don't care and enforce
5 - Officials who care and enforce

0 - Officials who don't know the Fashion Police rules, and, thus, don't know how to enforce, even if they wanted to, which they don't, so they don't. These guys probably don't care to enforce, because they don't care enough to understand the rules. There's a picture of one of these guys next to the word oblivious in the dictionary.