NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

The players along the lane are all subject to the same restrictions, regardless of offense or defense.

Same restrictions? How about their location on the lane, defense inside, offense farther out. The "inside" position is always a big advantage in rebounding.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You say the shooter has the biggest advantage?

Of course he does, but not in rebounding. He gets to take a fifteen foot shot, taking up to ten seconds to release it, with no defenders in his face trying to block his shot. Of course, that didn't help me in high school. I had an easier time making a put back with a defender than making an uncontested free throw.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Same restrictions? How about their location on the lane, defense inside, offense farther out. The "inside" position is always a big advantage in rebounding.

Ergo the defense has all the advantage it needs, so why are we concerned that changing the rule to the release would be "unfair" for the defense?

The other thing is the violation isn't called in half the high school games I watch. Might as well just make the change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Ergo the defense has all the advantage it needs, so why are we concerned that changing the rule to the release would be "unfair" for the defense?

The other thing is the violation isn't called in half the high school games I watch. Might as well just make the change.

I totally agree.

And I call this violation, but I seem like the only one that does. The rule was stupid to begin with. Why are we worried about this and act like the game is so rough in this area? All it does is cause other issues IMO.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

We heard all these same types of comments as we were putting the shot clock in...guess what - it wasn't (and isn't) as big a problem as you think it is.

Neither is the problem it's meant to address, IMO.

[Adam]

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.

The NFHS has made it clear that part of their reasoning is the change in the balance between offensive and defensive FT rebounds is not something they want. The fact is, as it is now, the rule gives the defense an added advantage due here, and for now, the NFHS likes that.

And I don't see how the likelihood of a lane violation changes if you change the rule. Players are going to try to cheat in no matter when you release the players along the lane.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Neither is the problem it's meant to address, IMO.

I am not advocating for or against...just pointing out that the arguments people are making really don't have much basis. Same types of arguments people made (make) against 3-person mechanics.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

OK, I was wondering if there was something else I was missing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I am not advocating for or against...just pointing out that the arguments people are making really don't have much basis. Same types of arguments people made (make) against 3-person mechanics.

I think 3 person is different. We can train or run clinics to teach the officials what to do and there is a lot of literature or video to do so. How many schools train their table people to do anything? I wish I had a penny every time someone said to me that works the table, "I know what I have been doing, I have been here for XX years." Then when the game gets to a certain point, the clock does not start or they allow some other violation of the rules that is not brought to our attention?

And I do not see the game as needing a shot clock. For one most teams do not slow down the game that much. And if you put in a shot clock, teams will rush their offense. Remember these are HS kids, not a bunch of kids recruited to run a particular offense. I am sure it works in some places, but I am not worried about everyone having a problem, I am worried about the right problem at the wrong time, in the wrong situation. And it will happen if you have a shot clock. If I did not go places in college and see a bunch of mistakes that we have to constantly correct, I would not be so skeptical. And those mistakes happen with D1 officials working games. Now I want a guy that does not know the difference between POI and AP and they are going to catch a shot clock mistake.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I am not advocating for or against...just pointing out that the arguments people are making really don't have much basis. Same types of arguments people made (make) against 3-person mechanics.

The difference, to me, is that 3 person games provide a substantial enough benefit that the challenges (money, training) are worth it.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by 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.

SoCal, you are truly the exception and not the rule. If I could fly you out here for my games I would. I just don't think most coaches or ADs at the HS level in NYC care unless a mistake affects them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen coaches running around five minutes before tip looking for a kid to run the game and/or shot-clock. Then when something goes wrong they want to get mad at the kid (or me and my partner).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

SoCal, you are truly the exception and not the rule. If I could fly you out here for my games I would. I just don't think most coaches or ADs at the HS level in NYC care unless a mistake affects them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen coaches running around five minutes before tip looking for a kid to run the game and/or shot-clock. Then when something goes wrong they want to get mad at the kid (or me and my partner).

I will say this, around here, training wouldn't be an issue for 95% of the HS games. Most schools use a staff member (willingness unknown) for table duties during the games. Some might be a problem, but not many. I still think this is an unnecessary expense with very little benefit.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

Adam-you're right.all of the schools in our league have at least 1 adult at the table.Half the league employs all adults at the table.At my school the AD runs our shot clock,a vice principal of academics runs the game clock,and I handle the book.If anybody has to miss a game we have several backup personnel ready with given notice.If we can do it and have no drop off then every school can do it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

Adam-you're right.all of the schools in our league have at least 1 adult at the table.Half the league employs all adults at the table.At my school the AD runs our shot clock,a vice principal of academics runs the game clock,and I handle the book.If anybody has to miss a game we have several backup personnel ready with given notice.If we can do it and have no drop off then every school can do it.

1. Your school puts the money and training time into it. Not every school does this (although I suspect most would to avoid embarrasment, if nothing else).
2. My main question is why? AFAIC, it's a solution in search of a problem. For the 1 or two games per season we hear about that end up 15-7 because of stall-ball (nationwide)? I just don't see it as worth the expense.

That said, if the states want to adopt it, I have no problem with opening it up that way: allow the state adoption to include the SC. I'd just be against it in my state, and against a mandatory use at the NFHS level (probably at least 10 years away).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

The NFHS has made it clear ...

I hope that you younguns' realize that the over the past thirty-plus years that NFHS has changed the rules from the "hit", to the "release" (1981), and, most recently, back to the "hit" (1997).

Players going in on the "release" has been tried, not just in a few states as an "experiment", but, rather, as a national rule change, and, at least according to the NFHS, it didn't work. If I can recall the rationale regarding why we changed the last time, it was because there was too much contact, illegal, and otherwise, when players entered on the "release". You guys are all certainly entitled to your various opinions, but the NFHS had empirical evidence that caused them to go back to the "hit".

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along in a while, if he can drag himself off the baseball, or softball, field, to give us some of the history regarding these rule changes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I hope that you younguns' realize that the over the past thirty-plus years that NFHS has changed the rules from the "hit", to the "release" (1981 ???), and, most recently, back to the "hit" (1993 ???).

Players going in on the "release" has been tried, not just in a few states as an "experiment", but, rather, as a national rule change, and, at least according to the NFHS, it didn't work. If I can recall the rationale regarding why we changed the last time, it was because there was too much contact, illegal, and otherwise, when players entered on the "release". You guys are all certainly entitled to your various opinions, but the NFHS had empirical evidence that caused them to go back to the "hit".

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along in a while, if he can drag himself off the baseball, or softball, field, to give us some of the history regarding these rule changes.

Billy is correct in his dates. The NFHS and NCAA Men's changed from "hit" to "release" in 1981. The NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees said the change was made because officials were not enforcing the rule as written. When the NCAA Women's Committee was created in the late 1980's it adopted the NCAA Men's "release" rule. When the NFHS change back to "hit" in 1993, the reason was due excessive contact during rebounding action. BUT, one can go back through all of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's POEs for the last 20 years and one will see that illegal contact has been a concern more often than not and the Rules Committees POEs would seem that the Committees want officials to call more fouls.

MTD, Sr.