NFHS Penalty Announcement

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me, but if handled properly, the player being disqualified, should well be aware of that fact, I don't deal with box scores nor see where announcing would impact them either way, leaving "every other sport makes these situations known", plus I can't find anywhere that "NF validates announcing disqualifications".

Again you keep talking about reasoning. There is reasoning when a sport would be the only one that would do something. And if that is not good enough for you, then my point again is clearly no one in powers cares what your position is on this.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I may be somewhat biased about, "every other sport makes these situations known" because try as I might, long ago despite repeatedly trying that excuse, "all the other guys were doing it' I was never able to get that by my old man.

Guess, we'll just have to agree, to disagree.

It is funny you focus on the "every other sport" aspect of my comments, but not what other levels within the same sport do. AGain you can agree to disagree, but stop trying to make this about your personal preference. Because you have not given a reason why it is bad to announce bad behavior that is penalized by kids when in other situations they would be called out for their behavior. Heck, a kid in school that is suspended would not be a secret. And all we are announcing is the penalty and the result, we are not giving them an explanation about the specifics in most cases or even talking about them in a negative way. We have a foul, it is penalized and we are telling them and giving at best the number that was penalized which again could result in ejection or be the reason the next similar action ejects them from the game.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again you keep talking about reasoning. There is reasoning when a sport would be the only one that would do something. And if that is not good enough for you, then my point again is clearly no one in powers cares what your position is on this. Peace

Actually, JR, I agree with your conclusion. This particular horse is long past dead and I see no value in continuing to beat the corpse. I really don't know who "those in power" are, or what they may "care", but NFHS rules, and mechanics, seem optional at best.

So, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, unless of course, you can come up with additional reasoning besides, "every other (sport, level) does it".

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ajmc

So, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, unless of course, you can come up with additional reasoning besides, "every other (sport, level) does it".

Can you come up with any additional reasoning other than "it's interscholastic football" or "we've never done it that way"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Actually, JR, I agree with your conclusion. This particular horse is long past dead and I see no value in continuing to beat the corpse. I really don't know who "those in power" are, or what they may "care", but NFHS rules, and mechanics, seem optional at best.

Powers that be are the NF or the NCAA and NFL that all now allow or even require for the number to be announced when a foul is committed. The NF was the last one to prohibit such information and they have IMO rightfully changed their minds and got with the newer age. And since they have allowed this to take place from the NF level, my state, as well as many others, have agreed that such a change was good. I worked a couple of State Finals in Illinois and it was often hard to determine who was the foul on when we clearly had TV showing the game. It made no sense to announce the number.

Originally Posted by ajmc

So, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, unless of course, you can come up with additional reasoning besides, "every other (sport, level) does it".

Again, you only came up with an argument that was based on as stated "egos" as if we everyone is not trying to figure out who might have committed an infraction. If you are not aware, many things we do are based on other levels. Many rules changes are based on what other levels do. And I just took a NF survey where many rules suggestions or comments about the new rules were being asked about what the other levels are doing. So it seems that someone in the NF cares what I stated or they would not have asked in their survey about those issues.

Peace

[SC Official]

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

Somewhere along a long line, I learned "You can't prove a negative". If the best you've got is, "Because they do it at higher levels" that's the best you've got and it will have to do.

I've simply been asking is their any specific reason, other than "everyone else does it" to suggest that there is some specific reason, purpose or benefit derived, or expected from identifying a player who has been disqualified.

If so fine, if not why bother? I'm not advocating a change, but if a change is recommended, I'd like to be able to understand, and if necessary, explain why. ("Because other levels do it", seems a little weak)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Somewhere along a long line, I learned "You can't prove a negative". If the best you've got is, "Because they do it at higher levels" that's the best you've got and it will have to do.

I've simply been asking is their any specific reason, other than "everyone else does it" to suggest that there is some specific reason, purpose or benefit derived, or expected from identifying a player who has been disqualified.

If so fine, if not why bother? I'm not advocating a change, but if a change is recommended, I'd like to be able to understand, and if necessary, explain why. ("Because other levels do it", seems a little weak)

Part of the problem is you are really not asking the right people. None of us here made the change. We might agree with the change but we did not actually make the decision. Maybe you should send an email to the committee or a committee member that has the insight.

Peace

[CT1]

Why would higher levels change an accepted practice in the first place? Don't you think, with their abundant resources, that they have made a full study of the proposed change?

The absolute worst rationale that a NFHS rule committee should EVER use is "We just don't want to be like the NCAA / (pro league)."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I think that is a little different argument and situation. Two-hand reporting was not essential to the game or mechanics. It is a style more than informational. At least in basketball, we have an overall problem in the way we report, so that often did not translate the way it will at the higher levels. We do it now, but I do not think it was some drastic advancement. Giving a number of a player that might actually be ejected from the game is very important of a chance.

Peace