NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It isn't any higher (and quite often is lower) per game than any of the college games I work.

I find it hard to believe that HS in your area are getting better table personal than colleges and/or that they are spending more time training them correctly. Regardless, this would definitely not be the case where JRut and I work HS games.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I find it hard to believe that HS in your area are getting better table personal than colleges and/or that they are spending more time training them correctly. Regardless, this would definitely not be the case where JRut and I work HS games.

My momma says, "The table crew is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You work NCAA games, right? How often do you have shot clock issues in a game?

It isn't any higher (and quite often is lower) per game than any of the college games I work.

We have enough problems in NCAA games with trained personnel that I do not want to deal with it in HS games with untrained personnel.

It may work great where you are, but I know from what I've seen around these parts I don't want it in my HS games.

[rockyroad]

This cracks me up...ALL of the things people are saying about the shot clock were said here when the idea first came up. Seriously - every single argument you guys are making came up here also.

Like I said...in the end, it really wasn't that big of a hassle.

Oh well...

[Raymond]

There's also the fact that I don't think HS games need a shot clock.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

This cracks me up...ALL of the things people are saying about the shot clock were said here when the idea first came up. Seriously - every single argument you guys are making came up here also.

Like I said...in the end, it really wasn't that big of a hassle.

Oh well...

Well that is great, but cost is the most important thing anyway. And that is why I do not feel the NF is going to make a rule that would require every jurisdiction to add this rule. Even if they did, I would see some states saying "Not yet...."

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, but let's not forget that all team control fouls aren't exactly the same as all player control fouls.

What is different? (that matters).

As long as you move the airborne shooter reference to the team control foul rule, you no longer need the player control foul at all.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I predict that the wearing of full-length tights will be made legal and incorporated into the leg-sleeve/arm-sleeve rule for restrictions on colors.

Additionally, I'd like to see the NFHS:
a. make the shot clock an acceptable state adoption.

b. The entirety of the team control/player control/backcourt violation rules need to be rewritten. They are still a mess from the TC foul change about three seasons ago.

c. Clarify that fighting during a live ball is a flagrant PERSONAL foul and that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

d. Reporting mechanic: permit two-handed reporting for fouls.

a) Absolutely not. You would be adding a significant cost to schools. Most schools would not be able to afford the cost of adding a shot clock.

b) Completely agree. This section needs to be rewritten.

c) Agreed.

d) Disagree, unless they change the rules to allow all numbers to be worn. Personally I think the rules need to stay the way they are on foul reporting.

I also don't want the restriction on free throws to end on the release. The way the rule is now is fine. Changing the rule will increase unneeded physical contact on free throws. The current rules penalize the offensive player if they miss the free throw because they give the defense the inside position for free throw missed rebounds, and the offense a limited time to overcome that. If you change to the release you lessen the penalty for missing a free throw because you increase the time the offense has to position themselves for a rebound. The simplest solution is that the offense should make the FREE throws in the first place.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I also don't want the restriction on free throws to end on the release. The way the rule is now is fine. Changing the rule will increase unneeded physical contact on free throws. The current rules penalize the offensive player if they miss the free throw because they give the defense the inside position for free throw missed rebounds, and the offense a limited time to overcome that. If you change to the release you lessen the penalty for missing a free throw because you increase the time the offense has to position themselves for a rebound. The simplest solution is that the offense should make the FREE throws in the first place.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. The players along the lane are all subject to the same restrictions, regardless of offense or defense. Unneeded physical contact? If it creates a disadvantage, call a foul. It's that simple. As for rebounding, the defense still has four players along the lane as opposed to the offense's two (three including the shooter). The defense has all the "advantage" it needs.

With the current, outdated rule, the likelihood of a lane violation being a big factor in the outcome of a game is too large. There's no reason not to change this rule.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. The players along the lane are all subject to the same restrictions, regardless of offense or defense. Unneeded physical contact? If it creates a disadvantage, call a foul. It's that simple. As for rebounding, the defense still has four players along the lane as opposed to the offense's two (three including the shooter). The defense has all the "advantage" it needs.

With the current, outdated rule, the likelihood of a lane violation being a big factor in the outcome of a game is too large. There's no reason not to change this rule.

Absolutely, change that rule. The offensive free throw shooter has the biggest advantage the way the rule is right now. The guys standing next to him cannot get in the lane fast enough to box him out. I hate that. Plus, the release is a much easier thing to judge, than hitting the rim. Guys on the lane line get away with going in a foot before the ball hits the rim. It's too close for a ref to call, but not too close for an advantage to be gained.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Absolutely, change that rule. The offensive free throw shooter has the biggest advantage the way the rule is right now. The guys standing next to him cannot get in the lane fast enough to box him out. I hate that. Plus, the release is a much easier thing to judge, than hitting the rim. Guys on the lane line get away with going in a foot before the ball hits the rim. It's too close for a ref to call, but not too close for an advantage to be gained.

You say the shooter has the biggest advantage? I think I see a shooter get the rebound maybe 3-4 times a year. Doesn't seem like a problem...the guys on the lane are 4 feet closer, they're fine.

It is a lot easier to judge the rim. You know exactly when it is going to happen. Guys are going in early only because no one calls it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. The players along the lane are all subject to the same restrictions, regardless of offense or defense. Unneeded physical contact? If it creates a disadvantage, call a foul. It's that simple. As for rebounding, the defense still has four players along the lane as opposed to the offense's two (three including the shooter). The defense has all the "advantage" it needs.

With the current, outdated rule, the likelihood of a lane violation being a big factor in the outcome of a game is too large. There's no reason not to change this rule.

They tried that, for many years, and the results were that officials just didn't call the fouls they wanted to be called. So, they changed the rule to get the desired result.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

I want to address the shot clock issue:
I work in California ,which uses the shot clock with both boys and girls games, and am privileged to work with some very good table crews out here.The operation of the shot clock is very rarely an issue in our league.AD's here know it is important to provide highly qualified table staff and everybody does their best to make sure that all contests are staffed with qualified personnel.
I think the biggest issue is making sure each game has a qualified scorekeeper on it instead of someone who just gets the game 10 minutes beforehand.At my school I handle 3 of 4 games on a game day.I handle JV Boys,Varsity Girls,and Varsity Boys while a student handles JV Girls.I train any student scorekeepers myself and emphasize professionalism with them from the moment they start with me.I visited one school this year that had an 8 year old boy attempt to be the official scorer on varsity (they use the JV girls coaches wife for both JV games). When the officials saw this during pre-game warmups they transferred official scorer powers to me for both varsity games.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

5 - Lets make "over the back" an actual thing so that players/coaches/fans can acutally properly ask for something.

Hell no, we can't let them win.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is different? As long as you move the airborne shooter reference to the team control foul rule, you no longer need the player control foul at all.

The second sentence in your post tells me that you are already aware of the difference, and have a remedy for the difference in the mechanics of the signal(s), a change in the rule along with a change in the signal chart.