The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Where are the NFHS rule changes? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99789-where-nfhs-rule-changes.html)

JRutledge Mon May 18, 2015 12:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 962556)
Most officials I've seen have been using this signal in some form or fashion for at least 7 years. Another signal that the NFHS is late in adding

We were using some signal of that type since I started and that was back in the mid-90s. They are more than 7 years late.

Peace

SNIPERBBB Mon May 18, 2015 12:39pm

I think with making an official signal, we'll see more variation, at least through to the Regional/State level.

Raymond Mon May 18, 2015 12:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 962556)
Most officials I've seen have been using this signal in some form or fashion for at least 7 years. Another signal that the NFHS is late in adding

Shows you how much I pay attention to approved signals, I always thought it was in the NFHS manual.

Adam Mon May 18, 2015 01:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 962557)
We were using some signal of that type since I started and that was back in the mid-90s. They are more than 7 years late.

Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 962561)
Shows you how much I pay attention to approved signals, I always thought it was in the NFHS manual.

Me too.

crosscountry55 Mon May 18, 2015 01:36pm

Excerpt from the article posted by bballref3396:

"The committee noted that new information has been added to the rules book that addresses cleaning up post play and urged fouls to be called when violations occur."

:confused:

This underscores the language problem that plagues NFHS editors. Sheesh.

Overall I'm very disappointed. From what was on the agenda, there were some great opportunities to spice up the game, and they were all passed on. The updated rule is meaningless because officials won't enforce it, the new signal is merely a reflection of common practice, and the points of emphasis are recycled versions of the same stuff that re-appears every 2-3 years.

And a final note about approved signals. I use them, but I'm never afraid to add some clarifying "extra" signals because communication is key. When I combine that with two-hand reporting, I find that the perception of my game by most assignors and commissioners is actually better than if I were to only use the limited approved signals that the NFHS publishes.

bballref3966 Mon May 18, 2015 02:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 962551)
Do we really need an official run-the-baseline signal?

Another thing to.get yelled at about at the state rules meeting.

No, we need an official run-the-endline signal. ;)

Adam Mon May 18, 2015 03:03pm

I was, and am, only interested in one change this year. It would be an editorial change, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mark Padgett Mon May 18, 2015 03:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 962566)
Excerpt from the article posted by bballref3396:

"The committee noted that new information has been added to the rules book that addresses cleaning up post play and urged fouls to be called when violations occur."

So I guess if a player takes not just a "few" but a whole lot of steps while carrying the ball, we can call a "flagrant travel" and give the other team two shots? :confused:

Stat-Man Mon May 18, 2015 03:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 962566)
And a final note about approved signals. I use them, but I'm never afraid to add some clarifying "extra" signals because communication is key.

With the new rule change last year, I'd often use a clarifying extra signal if I called a foul for an arm bar or repeated jabs.

I'm also going to assume that the mentioned protection for the free throw shooter is most likely the IAABO interpretation others were instructed to apply in their games.

Rich Mon May 18, 2015 07:21pm

I'm curious to see if there are any unannounced mechanics changes associated with the new manual.

Sadly, local newswriters are acting like things have actually changed with respect to post players with the ball.

SC Official Mon May 18, 2015 08:28pm

Am I missing something here? Weren't we all given an interpretation last year that said a ball handler was considered any player, including one in the post? This isn't a new rule, this is just new language being added to the book that is being passed off as a new rule.

APG Mon May 18, 2015 08:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 962598)
Am I missing something here? Weren't we all given an interpretation last year that said a ball handler was considered any player, including one in the post? This isn't a new rule, this is just new language being added to the book that is being passed off as a new rule.

There is nothing new from NFHS this year

Nevadaref Mon May 18, 2015 11:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 962598)
Am I missing something here? Weren't we all given an interpretation last year that said a ball handler was considered any player, including one in the post? This isn't a new rule, this is just new language being added to the book that is being passed off as a new rule.

Did you read post #27?

scrounge Tue May 19, 2015 06:49am

At least they didn't just do something for the sake of doing something.

Look at the bright side - no 'color of socks' rule at least!

BryanV21 Tue May 19, 2015 07:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrounge (Post 962612)
At least they didn't just do something for the sake of doing something.

Look at the bright side - no 'color of socks' rule at least!

Don't wake a sleeping giant.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1