Where are the NFHS rule changes?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

No where in this conversation or in the new rules is there anything about undershirts. And the undershirts have nothing to do with color rules of headbands/wristbands or sleeves/tights. The rule is clear on undershirts, they have to match the jersey. People are not going to be possibly wearing 10 different jerseys. They can and will 10 different versions of the items were are discussing and are in the current rules announcement. Because they do not have a restriction on socks or shoes which can be all types of colors. So why worry about some other item that a school does not purchase or administer their players to wear directly.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No where in this conversation or in the new rules is there anything about undershirts.

New rules? You are correct. No reference to undershirts.

Conversation? You are incorrect, even if it's only me.

Question was asked:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

An answer was offered:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To be able to easily identify teams, and numbers.

One could speculate that another possible reason is that the NFHS wants to prevent a motley mix of uniform, and equipment, colors that could possibly take away from the integrity, and dignity, of the game.

Undershirts can be "stuff", especially to those officials who hate being "Fashion Police", and who may consider color restrictions on undershirts to be frivolous (we have a few of these officials here in my little corner of Connecticut). Perhaps if you had added a modifier, i.e., "this stuff", instead of just, "stuff", then I may not have used undershirts as an example of a necessary color restriction based on the scrimmage example that I stated.

It appears that the NFHS believes that allowing a variety of colors for wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves, may make it more difficult for officials to "easily identify teams, and numbers", just as they probably believe the same problem exists for a variety of colors for jerseys, and undershirts.

My general point, not specific to just undershirts, is that there could be, in theory, a continuum that runs from total freedom from any color restrictions (Dr. Naismith’s original Thirteen Rules Of Basketball), which we can all agree would be difficult to officiate, to color restrictions for everything worn from headbands, and hair control devices, all the way down to underwear, shorts, compression shorts, socks, and shoes ("Fashion Gestapo"), which we could all agree would be unbelievably burdensome to officiate.

The NFHS has decided on color restrictions for uniforms, and equipment, that lies somewhere along that continuum.

It's where the NFHS draws that line in the "continuum sand" that we continually debate here on the Forum.

Many, including me, could argue that color restrictions on wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves, go a little too far, and should be outside the realm of game officials (but I'm still enforcing the rule).

A few, not including me, may argue that color restrictions on undershirts go too far (and sometimes choose not to enforce said rule).

Bottom line, the NFHS does have to "care what color stuff is", to be able to easily identify teams, and numbers, and, possibly, to protect the integrity, and dignity, of the game.

The devil is in the detail.

I remember when the only NFHS color restrictions were home team light (not just white) color jerseys, and road team dark color jerseys. Period. Over the three and a half decades that I've been officiating, the NFHS has expanded their definition of "stuff" to the point where, recently, they sent out a survey asking opinions on further expanding the definition of "stuff" to include socks.

When does the madness stop? Someday, in the future, the NFHS may limit the basketball to an exact, specific, color. Wait? I'm being told ... What? Pantone Matching System Orange 151, Red-Orange 173, or Brown 1535? What the hell does that mean? ... Never mind.

[bainsey]

Finally got around to reading the NFHS rule-change release, and found this little gem:

The committee ... urged fouls to be called when violations occur.

Oof, that could get messy.