Where are the NFHS rule changes?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

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]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Me too.

[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.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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]

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]

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.

[Rich]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.