Is there a specific thread or forum where I could discuss some aspects of the NFHS rule changes and test questions for the coming high school season? I would really like to get Law5's opinion on some things due to his position on the committee. If there is a place already established, please direct me to it. If not, I'll check back in several hours and just post here. I'm sure that a mod could always move the info to the appropriate location.
I guess we have a thread now! We only made three substantive changes for this coming year, and all of the changes make NFHS the same as IFAB in those three areas. The written/on line tests were substantially re-written and, IMHO, the trick questions have been eliminated.
References to specific changes have come up -- for example, in a thread related to sendoffs and the minimum number of players. The change summary was in the Best Story of your Week thread. - QC
The three changes that were made for the coming year are: 1. Attempted DOGSO-H which results in a goal anyway (e.g. deflection to a second attacker who scores) will now be a caution to the defender and not a disqualification. (Used to be red, even though a goal was scored.) 2. If there is an "unusual situation" at the taking of a penalty kick (e.g. dog on the field) between the kick and the ball getting where it's otherwise going, we retake the kick. (Used to be IFK coming out.) 3. No more "soft" red. A second caution is now a disqualification, just like any other red card, and the offending team plays short. (Used to be that the offending team did not play short for a 2nd caution.) I should also mention that this year will also mark implementation of the previously adopted rule change that requires that the NOCSAE emblem and player height range be permanently marked on the front of the shinguard. Previously, it could be on a tag which, somehow, was always missing or unreadable. The previously adopted change to all white shirts and socks for the home team is NOT in effect until Fall 2013.
He means that all shin guards must now have the NOSAE seal stamped on them which states what height range of players they are designed to be worn for. Example, most players will now not be able to buy the kiddie sized shin guards and be legally aloud to wear them in High School soccer in the US.
Ahh, I see. Though that begs another question: What do NFHS care what size shin pads the players are wearing?
Same reason they care that the players wear them at all. The perception was that players were wearing ridiculously small shinguards that did not actually provide protection. So NFHS, in locus parentis, decided to make minimum sizes. And recognizing that HS players come in many different sizes, made a chart on what size who needs to wear. I find it a bit humurous, but not totally insane. (Heck, I when I played, I often played with abandon and knew was gonna get it in the shins, so I always wanted big shin guards anyway.)
Tibia, not humerus. I trust no one expects us to enforce this, and that when I ask the coaches before the match, "Coaches, are all of your players properly and legally equipped?" it will serve to remind them to run back and check all the tibia guards for appropriate sizing and labeling. "OK ladies, drop your socks!"
It all comes back to lawsuits. You have to have something on the books that says you were at least trying to make them be safe. I know most people (myself included) do not enforce this very strictly but I like to have it in my bag of tools if I get a coach or player that wants to be a prick about some minor thing. At which time I become the shinguard god, proclaiming that all who stand before me shall wear shinguards to the exact specifications prescribed by NFHS and NOCSAE or be banished from my presence and receive the mighty yellow lightning. Sorry I went way overboard with that.
In So Cal, we teach a simple way to address shinguards before the match. If the referee judges that the shinguards are inappropriate or unsafe, the referee informs the player that they need to be changed to the correct size. If the player or coach contests, the response is "show me the NOSCAE stamp that indicates these are appropriate for your height." Usually, the players just reach into their bag and bring out the correct shinguards.
This. We frequently use that in my area with a coach being a jerk. Start looking for any illegal equipment so you can book the coach and get him to shut up without provoking further conversation by confronting the immediate behavior. Yes, this can/does/has backfire(d), but is another useful tool in the kit, especially if you know the coach, and can make this work.
Here are the things which I wish to inquire about for clarification. Perhaps Law5 can take some of these to the rules committee for action that would clean up the rules book. 1. New DOGSO-H ruling: If people haven't heard/noticed play ruling 12.8.2 sit E (caution the offender) conflicts with that of play 2 under Goal: Yellow, No Goal: Red on the second page of the 2012 Preseason Guide ("Misconduct other than intentional handling results in a red card even if the goal is scored."). The national rules interpretation meeting on July 16 stated to follow the rules book. 2. When does a substitute become a player in the three situations when a substitute may enter without being beckoned by the referee, and the reverse for the departing player? There is no rule to cover this type of substitution. If an entering substitute or exiting player commits an offense during this transition which would warrant a red card, there is no way to determine if the team plays short or not. I recommend removing this exception and making all subs wait for a beckoning. 3. There are test questions regarding missing or incorrect field markings. All of the rules in Rule 1 state "shall be" marked/indicated/drawn, so that means must. Play ruling 1.2.4 contains a note which instructs the referee to make an exception for a missing mark or spot at midfield and not delay the start of play. Play rulings 1.2.1 sit B and 1.2.6 instruct the referee to proceed with an obscured, but present, halfway line and incorrectly marked penalty areas. However, what about for any other required field markings, such as team areas or not present penalty or goal areas? Which of these can be ignored and which must be present for the contest to begin? Where does it state any of this in the rules book? What principle is being applied or do the test answers come from the whim of the author? 4. Exactly who is permitted in a team area during a game? Who is not? 5. There seems to be a conflict in requiring a roster containing "all" players, subs, coaches, etc. prior to the game, yet then permitting additions later. How is that possible? Either the roster submitted prior to the game contains all of the necessary people or it doesn't. If it doesn't how many can be missing and still have the roster be considered okay to begin? What if the coach only lists the starting 11 and desires to add all of the subs later? Or he only provides one coach name and says that others will arrive later, but he doesn't know who or when?
1. Can you produce the 'preseason guide' you are talking about? I have never seen it and would like to try and understand if it does contradict the rule book, which now states that all DOGSO fouls can be cautioned so long as the ball enters the goal. 2. That is an interesting question and I would venture a guess that subs coming in for players that are not cautioned are 'players' as soon as the goal is scored and the player they are going in for then becomes a 'sub'. Keep in mind there is supposed to be an official scorer to record this, not that many people get this luxury. 3. I would use the safety concept with this. You want to play the game but if you feel like the lines or lack thereof would constitute a safety problem rather than an annoyance you can say no dice and abandon the match. Example, if the goal and touch lines are not visible it may be unsafe to play as the players will no longer know when to stop playing. Just a guess. 4. I totally agree, my local association has a huge problem with this every year. We have teams that bring armies of asst. coaches and throw them on the roster. Basically anyone they want to be sitting on the bench side they simply write down as a coach. I would like to see a maximum number of coach/bench personnel added to the NFHS policy on benches even if it is fairly high like 6 or 7. I guess this could refer to players as well, since I am not going to be able to verify eligibility at the game site. I would just have to take the team's word for it. 5. Please refer to 4.
It gives the referee more leverage when the 6'6" player comes out with a 3" shinguard. Many high school players around here look like they are still wearing the shinguards they bought when they were U10 players. A few of them wear ones that look like they aren't big enough for a U10 player. Invariably, they moan that it's big enough when told to find proper shinguards. Having an actual standard makes the referee's job easier.
My whole theory about shin guards: Let 'em feel the pain of a snapped shin because they were too stupid to buy full length shin guards. I will swear that full length shin guards have saved me from a broken shin during one HS game. I still have a prominent scar on my shin from that 50/50 tackle.
In FL, this is precisely the referee's pre-game task. Most associations follow the glide path of "spot inspections early in the season followed by gradually more detailed inspections as the season ages and kids have time to buy what they need." 2 things I know first hand: 1) By the time district/state playoffs roll around, every kid is inspected every game 2) Fail to do it in my association, and you will not ref.
Interesting. For Georgia HS games, we are instructed not to do a formal inspection pre-game, but simply to ask the coaches (formally and even somewhat ceremonially) "Coaches, are all of your players properly and legally equipped?" And then, of course, the coach gets the first yellow if one of them is not. Maybe there will be something different this year to help get the new shinguard rule into coaches' and players' heads. But I bet not.
It is putting the legal onus on the coaches and the schools and away from the referees. It is a plausible deniability cover for referees.
I'm not going to try to cover every point discussed but here are two comments: 1. shinguards. NOCSAE is the National Operating Committee on Stanards for Athletic Equipment. Essentially, this is a bunch of engineers who look at the safety of sports equipment. Soccer is not the first sport whose equipment they have examined. When they started checking shinguards, they found that only something like 40% of them actually provided any meaningful degree of protection. So this is really about seeing that shinguards actually guard the players shins. Part of the engineering issue is that the shinguards need to cover a reasonable amount of the shin. This means that the standard NOCSAE has established provides for a size range based on the height of the player. I think you'll find that the minimum size is surprisingly small. How equipment is checked by officials is pretty much a state association matter. My instructions to the referees in our state is to ask the question of the coach and the do an informal walk about to double check equipment, not only shinguards but also jewelry, uniforms, et al. If you find a problem, return to the coach to deal with it. That includes shinguards that appear to be too small, based on the outline you see under the socks. Other states have a different approach. NFHS has a different philosophy about player equipment than the IFAB. First, all of our participants are below the legal age of consent in the United States. By contrast, an adult player can assume the risk of playing with shinguards that are tiny. Teenagers, legally, don't have that power. Second, the coach, therefore, is held responsible for the safety of the players' equipment, unlike IFAB and NCAA. Referees are just double checking. 2. rosters and team areas. I've only been at this for 22 years but I've never had a coach ask to add a player to his/her roster after the start of the game. YMMV. Hence, I'm not terribly concerned about this section of the rules. Teams can have anyone they want in the technical area. So what? If the principal wants to be on the bench, let him. What's the point of trying to limit the number of people on the bench? If the coach's 4 year old son has to be there because the coach doesn't have day care for him, big deal! (Yes, I have done a college game where the coaches were Dad and Mom and their one year old was in the stroller in the bench area. It was a little strange to have Mom soothing the baby in the stroller at the same time she's complaining about throw-in direction decisions.) They just all have to be listed on the roster. Do you expect that the team should have to somehow 'prove' to you that this person really is a team manager? I can think of a lot of things that are more important battles to fight, IMHO.
This is exactly my thinking. Why should referees waste their time dealing with stupid players and this stupid technicality? Let them wear whatever size they want and deal with the possibility of getting hurt. It doesn't comprise the safety of any of the other players.
In my 12 years of HS soccer officiating, I have only had this come up once. A player was subbed into a game and committed four fouls within two minutes of entering the game. I cautioned him for PI and the other team's coach began complaining that the cautioned player was not on the roster. I took the roster out of my pocket and saw that his number was not listed so I asked his coach. It turned out that he got blood on his uniform during the last game and was wearing a different jersey. Using the "add players to the roster after the game as started" rule, I simply had the coach correct the roster.
About to knock out the 2012-13 NFHS test at 11 PM. I was highly unimpressed by last year's test, so here's to hoping that this new and improved version is just that.
