Halves ???
 

There was no time period recommended, or even mentioned, in the proposed rule change. It made the list because of the number of positive responses on the NFHS Questionnaire:

10. Would You Favor: Playing the game in halves?

I'm not opposed to it as long as they don't increase the number of allotted timeouts. Six to one, half dozen to another.

I'm sure they'd start with 16-min halves. States that wanted to try (or continue with) 18 would probably do so at the expense of conceding their periodic opportunity for a regional seat on the rules committee (the same way the shot clock states concede such a seat).

I'm sure it's going well. Quarters are working well for us. I don't see this as a big deal either way.

The Constitution State ...
 

Here in Connecticut, our private prep school games are played with 16 minute halves, four 60 second timeouts, and two 30 second timeouts.

I really prefer eight minute periods, the "guaranteed" break after eight minutes to catch my breath, both physically, and mentally, and to possibly confer with my partner about how the game is progressing, and whether, or not, we should make any adjustments.

If the NFHS goes to halves, I can live with it. I agree with Adam, "I don't see this as a big deal either way".

I don't understand why some people feel so strongly about the halves/quarters argument. I guess it would make the game quicker, so officials don't have to stick around so long. But would it make that big a difference? I mean, it's like the new pace of play rules in MLB, which are shaving maybe 10 to 15 minutes off of a three hour game. Frankly, is it worth the headache? I don't think so.

But if halves were adopted country-wide, then there should be a couple more time outs added for teams. You shouldn't just take away two one minute breaks (the ones between quarters). Even if you give teams a couple extra 30-second TOs instead of full ones.

Heck, I know in some fast-paced games I appreciate the breaks.

The numbers of items I read and think, "Not in a million years" is almost all of them.

A Million Years Is A Long Time ...
 

I bet that this is the one that you would believe would happen in a million years:

Delete: A visible manufacturer’s logo/trademark/reference is not permitted on the undershirt.

This really can't be generating any controversy? Right? Any relaxation of any of the Fashion Police rules is good? Right?

Wait? I'm being told ... What unintended consequences? Size? Measure it with a ruler? That I have to keep in my pocket? Square inches? Will this involve math? Never mind.

No, they'll pass than and then put a sock rule in place.

How about not making game officials deal with such nonsense in the first place?

Down The Middle Lies The Virtue ...
 

I can't agree with you until you define "nonsense".

There's a spectrum of Fashion Police issues. On one end of the spectrum are rules that dictate that players on the same team wear the same color uniforms, in a color that's different than the opponent's color, with legible, and different, numbers. At the same end of the spectrum are safety issues, i.e., jewelry. Then we take a long journey down to the other end of the spectrum where we have rules involving logos, knee pads, sleeves, headbands, hair control devices, etc.

Where on that Fashion Police spectrum does common sense end, and "nonsense" begin? I'm not in favor of doing away with all Fashion Police issues, but I really wish that the NFHS would relax some of those issues, using common sense as a guide. Socks would be as far down the "nonsense" end of the spectrum as one could get.

The "fashion police" rules only bother me when it comes to making us responsible for making sure manufacturer logos are the correct size, or there aren't too many of them. That's something that leagues or states should take care of. Or talking about the size of numbers or letters, as if we need to start carrying rulers with us to games.

The sock thing goes too far, but when it comes to undershirts, sleeves, head/wristbands, I don't have a problem. Just say they need to be white, black, or a single solid school color, and all team members have to wear the same color. Teams look good, and there's no confusion between one team and the other.

The Volunteer State ...
 

Here's the rationale for the black, and white, restrictions (sleeves, tights, headbands, wristbands), and for the head coach technical foul for illegal apparel:

It makes the rule easier to understand by officials, coaches & players. We are spending more time discussing what is legal & illegal with uniforms & apparel than we are spending with hand-checking, post-play, etc. It will also put more responsibility on coaches to make sure their players are dressed legally.

It was submitted by someone in Tennessee.

I secretly like the menagerie of shoe and sock colors. If anything, it helps me to ID individual players quickly. If I notice during pre-game that A1, wearing periwinkle shoes and hot pink socks, has a "happy feet" tendency on his dribble drive, it heightens my awareness when I see those same shoes and socks at the top of the key during the game.

Oak Would Also Be Good Color ...
 

If I were a high school head coach, I would never allow any of my players, especially the guards, to wear these new-fangled, bright, fluorescent colored shoes, and socks. Anything that draws extra attention to a player's feet, or makes it easier to see a player's feet, can only lead to a few extra travel calls over the course of a season.

Best color for player's shoes, and socks? Pine.

For those who wonder here in Minnesota with halves the number of timeouts has NOT increased. Still have the same number we did with quarters.

Let me know when the final verdict comes down, I'll do whatever.