Where are the NFHS rule changes?

[crosscountry55]

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."



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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.