Where are the NFHS rule changes?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by ODog

Did they somehow make this WORSE? A reasonable team member/coach/parent could read this and conclude sleeves/tights no longer need to be black, white, beige or the predominant color of the jersey UNLESS team members are wearing headbands/wristbands.

If you're not wearing bands (and I'd say most people don't), every color under the rainbow seems in play for sleeves/tights.

Am I missing something?

Yes you are. It's really simple. The sleeves and tights must match the headbands and wristbands. Since wrist and head bands must be black, white, beige or uniform color, the same goes for the sleeves and tights. They all have to be the same color if worn. It isn't that hard.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes you are. It's really simple. The sleeves and tights must match the headbands and wristbands. Since wrist and head bands must be black, white, beige or uniform color, the same goes for the sleeves and tights. They all have to be the same color if worn. It isn't that hard.

I do not know if it will be easy either. We had a lot of different colors. We have many times colors that were not solid (if you include the stitching). And parents do not read these rules. And that includes the undergarments that were worn that are more complicated to remove. Again, why do they care what color stuff is?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why do they care what color stuff is?

To be able to easily identify teams, and numbers.

I worked a boys high school varsity scrimmage back in the fall where both teams wore scrimmage vests, one team blue, and the other team white. Because it was only a scrimmage, we let both teams wear any color undershirt that the players wanted to wear, and we ended up with about a half dozen different color undershirts, including opponents with the same color undershirts.

It was not very easy to identify teams, especially during rebounding action under the basket.

Granted, the NFHS has gone overboard with some of the "Fashion Police" rules, but same of the color rules are really needed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To be able to easily identify teams, and numbers.

I am not talking about jersey.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I worked a boys high school varsity scrimmage back in the fall where both teams wore scrimmage vests, one team blue, and the other team white. Because it was only a scrimmage, we let both teams wear any color undershirt that the players wanted to wear, and we ended up with about a half dozen different color undershirts, including opponents with the same color undershirts.

It was not very easy to identify teams, especially during rebounding action under the basket.

I guess traveling must be really hard for you too?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Granted, the NFHS has gone overboard with some of the "Fashion Police" rules, but same of the color rules are really needed.

I have never had a problem before identifying the color of head bands and wrist bands. Remember we had no color restrictions of these items before.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not talking about jersey.

And neither was I.

I was talking about undershirts, one of the items some consider to be a frivolous "Fashion Police" issue.

Again, there have to be some color rules, sure there are too many right now in the rulebook (wrist bands, headbands, sleeves), but there still have to be some. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's be sure to just throw out the bathwater.

[APG]

My thing with this session of deciding on rules/mechanics/signals, I don't even think there had to be too many drastic rules changes (though what was asked of us in the survey suggested that big changes will be in the way in the future)...

If you don't want to change too much this year rules wise, is it too much to add some f'n signals to the book?! There are so many common signals that could have been added especially this year...borrowed from the pro/college ranks, that are easy and give clear information. Off the topic of my head:

Hit to the head
Hook
Armbar
Two hands on the dribbler
Trip
Chuck
Violation of verticality (some would say the frankenstein signal)

I'm probably forgetting a signal or two (punch all "offensive fouls" or fists for a blocking foul)...but the point is we could add so many more signals that would more clearly denote what type of foul is called...

Yet they add a signal that officials have been using for at least 10 years already. Most officials are gonna see that "change" and think it was already in the books already.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by APG

My thing with this session of deciding on rules/mechanics/signals, I don't even think there had to be too many drastic rules changes (though what was asked of us in the survey suggested that big changes will be in the way in the future)...

If you don't want to change too much this year rules wise, is it too much to add some f'n signals to the book?! There are so many common signals that could have been added especially this year...borrowed from the pro/college ranks, that are easy and give clear information. Off the topic of my head:

Hit to the head
Hook
Armbar
Two hands on the dribbler
Trip
Chuck
Violation of verticality (some would say the frankenstein signal)

I'm probably forgetting a signal or two (punch all "offensive fouls" or fists for a blocking foul)...but the point is we could add so many more signals that would more clearly denote what type of foul is called...

Yet they add a signal that officials have been using for at least 10 years already. Most officials are gonna see that "change" and think it was already in the books already.

+1. Like I said before, the irony for me is that the evaluated perception of my game is better when I do use these signals to more effectively communicate. Occasionally I stumble across a federation purist who reads me the riot act regarding "approved signals," and I pretend to care, keep my mouth shut, and then move on. Oddly, my schedule continues to improve each year, anyway.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

My thing with this session of deciding on rules/mechanics/signals, I don't even think there had to be too many drastic rules changes (though what was asked of us in the survey suggested that big changes will be in the way in the future)...

If you don't want to change too much this year rules wise, is it too much to add some f'n signals to the book?! There are so many common signals that could have been added especially this year...borrowed from the pro/college ranks, that are easy and give clear information. Off the topic of my head:

Hit to the head
Hook
Armbar
Two hands on the dribbler
Trip
Chuck
Violation of verticality (some would say the frankenstein signal)

Why do they need a signal for this...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

... is it too much to add some f'n signals to the book?

I give these (below) signal suggestions to IAABO every year, and get rejected every year.

1) Change “Delayed Lane Violation” to “Delayed Dead Ball: Withheld Whistle” to allow for delayed free throw violations that do not involve a lane violation, i.e. disconcertion, or three point arc violation.

Rationale: Presently, IAABO does not have a signal for delayed violations such as disconcertion, or a three point arc violation. IAABO only has a signal for a delayed violation on a lane violation.



2) Add supplemental “Intentional Foul: Excessive Contact” signal.

Rationale: Adding this signal to the chart will allow officials to differentiate between intentional fouls for “excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball” from the other types of intentional fouls.



3) Change “Five Second Closely Guarded”” to “Five Second Closely Guarded And Five Second Throwin Violation”

Rationale: Presently, there is no signal on the IAABO chart for a five second throwin violation. It’s the same signal for a five second closely guarded violation, but it’s not specifically described in the IAABO signal chart label.



4) Add “Shooter Has Foot Touching Three Point Line” signal.

Rationale: This signal has been used in Connecticut successfully for several years. It gives coaches, fans, and scorekeepers more information than the signals that we presently use for three point attempts. With this signal, coaches, fans, and scorekeepers will know, for sure, that the successful attempt will only be two points.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... color of head bands and wrist bands. Remember we had no color restrictions of these items before.

Nor did we have color restrictions on undershirts before such a rule ("The Patrick Ewing Rule") was added in the NFHS rulebook.

In fact, Dr. Naismith’s original Thirteen Rules Of Basketball didn't have any rules regarding the color of uniforms, or equipment. Nothing about color. Period. But rules evolve over time, sometimes, unfortunately, becoming quite, in my opinion regarding wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves, burdensome.

[JRutledge]

Well we are not talking about undershirts. The undershirt rule was changed several more years ago. I believe that rule was changed in the 90s.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... why do they care what color stuff is?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To be able to easily identify teams, and numbers. I worked a boys high school varsity scrimmage back in the fall where both teams wore scrimmage vests, one team blue, and the other team white. Because it was only a scrimmage, we let both teams wear any color undershirt that the players wanted to wear, and we ended up with about a half dozen different color undershirts, including opponents with the same color undershirts. It was not very easy to identify teams, especially during rebounding action under the basket. Granted, the NFHS has gone overboard with some of the "Fashion Police" rules, but same of the color rules are really needed.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... undershirts, one of the items some consider to be a frivolous "Fashion Police" issue.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well we are not talking about undershirts.

Maybe you weren't, but I certainly was, as an example of why "they care what color stuff is", and I see no reason why I can't be part of "we". "Stuff" can refer to an undershirt because some believe that undershirts fall under frivolous "Fashion Police" issues.

Now if you want to call color restrictions on wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves, "frivolous", then we can certainly agree on that.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes you are. It's really simple. The sleeves and tights must match the headbands and wristbands. Since wrist and head bands must be black, white, beige or uniform color, the same goes for the sleeves and tights. They all have to be the same color if worn. It isn't that hard.

As to the above cited fashion police rule revisions as well as the "post players"actual addition to 10-6-12, I am neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed.
Call me whelmed.
No problem this stuff being implemented this coming year.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes you are. It's really simple. The sleeves and tights must match the headbands and wristbands. Since wrist and head bands must be black, white, beige or uniform color, the same goes for the sleeves and tights. They all have to be the same color if worn. It isn't that hard.

I know what he is saying and there is a hole in the rule. The color restrictions are on the headbands/wrist bands. It only says that sleeves much match any headbands/wristbands. If there are none, then there is nothing to match. So, are there really any color restrictions? I know what they meant, but the wording leaves open the possibility of the sleeves being any color at all, as long as all sleeves match each other.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I know what he is saying and there is a hole in the rule. The color restrictions are on the headbands/wrist bands. It only says that sleeves much match any headbands/wristbands. If there are none, then there is nothing to match. So, are there really any color restrictions? I know what they meant, but the wording leaves open the possibility of the sleeves being any color at all, as long as all sleeves match each other.

if A and B have color restrictions, and C and D must match A and B, C and D have color restrictions. It really isn't hard, I just don't get why would be confusing at all. I do understand the NFHS has editorial, and wording problems everywhere, but if you understand the intent of the rule, then it shouldn't be a problem.