View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 01, 2010, 03:52pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
That's the basic gist. I see three flaws with a restrictive area:

*More unnecessary rulebook venacular. Rule 4 of NFHS would have to add the definition of a "secondary defender," plus Rule 10 would to make clear what charging fouls cannot exist in the area. I'm also curious how you define the primary defender when a forward is double-teamed (or even triple).
*"Who was his man?" Once you've established the the defender had LGP at the point of contact, you have to ask yourself if he was guarding that person the whole time. I doubt we're going to catch that all the time. Why should we care who was guarding whom, anyway? The matchups are not our concern.
*The Big One: The existing rules cover the need. All defenders are entitled to their spot on the floor. If you're looking for LGP, and you're looking for when a shooter becomes airborne, you have all you need to make an accurate ruling.

Anytime a rule change is considered, it's best to ask what someone is trying to accomplish with it. I still don't see what a restrictive area will do that's already covered by the rules.
You're right in that there would have to be an added definition in Rule 4 and Rule 10 would have to be modified, but I don't think it would be as drastic a change as you make it sound out to be. The NCAA rule book doesn't read drastically different even with the new definitions this year.

Now who would be the primary defender on a double team, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe it'd be the defender who's LGP was in the path of the player? Perhaps those who use NCAA rules more often could answer that question. Really though, the plays where this issue come to mind are dribble drives or fast breaks where it's easy to determine primary vs. secondary.

I wouldn't expect NFHS to implement any of these rules in the near future. I think if/when NCAA keeps/extends the restricted area, there will be more pressure to do so at the NF level, but that would be down the road. Either way I'm fine with the way the rule is now, but I wouldn't care a bit if it changed.

Last edited by APG; Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 06:19pm. Reason: Grammar
Reply With Quote