Revise and Send This to Your State Office...I Did
 

Hi (state association director),
These "fashion police" changes by NFHS are getting out of hand. There are errors this year, and what worked great last year for the first time is being retracted again this year.
Any chance the (state association) can be convinced to waive the change the NFHS made once again to the color restriction regarding optional adornments? Right when they got basketball rule 3-5-3 and 3-5-4 to a point that it was easily enforcible (white, black, beige, or a single solid school color for arm-sleeves and leg-sleeves and for headbands and wristbands). No problem with that last year whatsoever. The players finally had a rule they could live with . . . and they did. Easy for everyone. And now this year they change "single solid school color" to "predominant color of the uniform."
This "fashion police" retraction to how it was previous years is not only borderline senseless, given the hesitancy of many officials not to mess with these rules at all, it will become a chaotic, unenforced, inconsistently enforced situation like it was two years ago and prior. What in the world precipitated this change? Were there rampant problems with last year's rule or something?
Any chance the (state association) can waive this new NFHS change and revert to how these two rules were last season when they worked just great?
Also, the unintended contradiction between 3-5-4a and supporting casebook 3.5.4 needs to be corrected.
Also, the phrase in 3-5-3a, "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" is not correct, given 3-5-4 obviously gives separate rules for wristbands and headbands.

Please consider the headache trainers are gonna have with these errors and seemingly unnecessary changes and waive these NFHS changes for our state this and following years.

Looking forward to your seasoned and directive response.

Why is this so hard? The "anything worn on arms and legs is a sleeve" pertains to the long sleeves with the pads in them, or the elbow shooting sleeves. They removed the medical permission part and lumped all into a sleeve. Nothing really has changed with the headbands and wristbands, except predominant has replaced single school color.

If a team's colors are blue, red, and yellow, and they're wearing blue tops, gotta be black, white, beige, or blue. That's it. Headbands/ wristbands must match, sleeves and legs must match, but the bands and sleeves don't have to match. In the above scenario, the HB/WB can be white and the sleeves can be black.

It Will Be Like Christmas Morning ...
 

Not until Wednesday, October 15, 2014.

Doesn't It Start With An F ???
 

Hey Freddy: I think that you misspelled "mucks".

I say go one step further. Send a version of the same letter to the NFHS Rules Editor, Theresia Wynns. If she receives enough of them it might effect some change. I plan to do it as soon as I either have my rule book in hand (October 21) or the new online version appears on Arbiter, whichever comes first.

I guess the Rules Writers at NFHS have realized that such things (i.e., leotards with knee hex-pads and so-called "shooting sleeves") are more "fashion-statements" than "medical necessities". I've noticed even 6th graders--and some 3rd graders wearing those accessories. I'm humored when I see it:rolleyes:

Reminds me of Joe Pesci from The Super.

Because...
1. Former "single solid school color" was easy for teams to comply with and for officials to enforce and there was never a problem with it, and
2. New "predominant color of the jersey", instead, being more restrictive, means something senseless to have to educate officials on, something non-essential to the game that will need to be enforced with teams who, say, as a green and white school color team, are wearing their white jerseys and want to wear their green headbands and we have to tell 'em no that green isn't the predominant color of their jerseys
3. "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" (3-5-3a)... is wrong, since 3-5-4 details requisites about wristbands, which are enforced differently than arm sleeves.
4. Casebook 3.5.4 directly contradicts rule 3-5-4a.
This whole attempt at fashion police enhancement, unnecessary as it is, seems ill-contrived and hastily thrown together and without real need. And that's no way to maintain authority and order.
Getting a group of officials to buy into a rule change as chaotic and nonsensical as this is gonna be like pushing a rope. The Fed has to put themselves of those out there in the field who have to deal with the changes they come up with like this. But they didn't.
That's why it's so hard.
Then again, don't care and it wouldn't be that hard.
I'm hoping our state reverts to last year's rule on this and we can get back to RSBQ and 1,2 Jabbar automatics, etc--things that really matter.

Thoughts on this new casebook play?

*4.14.1 SITUATION D:

A1 is fouled by B1 while Team A is in double bonus. In frustration, A1 pushes B1 after the ball becomes dead. A1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 successfully makes both free throws for the personal foul assessed to B1. B3 is ready to attempt the free throw for the technical foul by A1. The official scorer notifies the officials that the technical foul on A1 was his/her fifth.

RULING: Officials notify the Team A coach and A1 of the disqualification and allow a substitute for A1. A correctable error has occurred by allowing the wrong player (A1) to attempt the free throws for the personal foul and has been discovered within the timeframe to correct. The free throws by A1 are cancelled and A1’s substitute shall attempt the free throws for the personal foul against A1 followed by the attempts by Team B for the technical foul. (2-10-1c, 4-14-1)

Whoever came up with this RULING should be sent back to Basketball Officiating 101. R2-S10-A1c and R4-S14-A1 do NOT apply. The only rule that applies is: R4-S14-A2, which states: "A player is officially disqualified and becomes bench personnel when the coach is notified by an official."

My first game of the season (also Mark, Jr.'s) is not until Nov. 13th and already I am gnashing my teeth and pulling out what little hair I left on my head.

MTD, Sr.

iirc, NFHS had this one way, and NCAA (at least W) had it the other. I'm glad they decided to make them the same, but they changed the wrong one.

As an FYI, it's also available in Kindle form for $5.99....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...XWC3ERC2AK4LX5

I think this falls into the category of "unannounced change".

Since I retired from college officiating after the 2007-08 season my interest in the college (men's and women's) is to the extent that I buy copies of the rules, casebooks, and CCA manuals, and only skim through them. When did the NCAA Women's make this change?

MTD, Sr.

Along with the Note on 2-11-5: The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play because the scorer has failed to notify the official is as follows: As soon as the scorer discovers the irregularity, the game horn should be sounded after, or as soon as, the ball is in control of the offending team or is dead. The disqualified player must be removed immediately. Any points which may have been scored while such player was illegally in the game are counted. If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials.