Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
The intentional foul part was a slide on the IAABO 2014-15 New Rules and Points of Emphasis Power Point right after the free throw line violation slide.
  |
I can see the rationale behind the Connecticut rule. The intent seems to be to reduce the penalty for contact on the free thrower. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's a local decision and when in Rome.... You know several years ago the NCAA opted to go to the point of interruption for most technical fouls instead of automatically giving the offended team a free possession. Likewise, that was a conscious decision to lessen the impact of a penalty. Rules committees are made up of coaches, officials and administrators. If they all agree, I'm ok with it.
On the broader issue of IAABO, I tend to agree that it's an organization in decline. While western high school commissioners and the John Adams regime have focused on the evolution of the game (coach-official interactions, freedom of movement, game management), it seems like IAABO has a static platform that is built around rules, unionization (nepotism?), cabinet government and publishing books. IAABO just hasn't innovated and evolved. I think this is what has caused a lot of fractiousness among east coast boards. I'm not saying IAABO is horrible...it means well and at least some local boards are outstanding. But at the corporate level, I think some soul searching needs to be done.
Interesting observation: I've officiated in six states. Three of them operated under a system where the high school conferences hired a single commissioner/assigner and that person had maybe one or two assistants tops. Those are the states where I've felt the quality of basketball was the best and the assigning and evaluation process was the most fair and transparent. In two states I worked under boards with lots of officers, and I felt the quality of basketball was less and the assigning process was based more on one's totem pole position than raw ability. The final state was sort of a mix (small board, and lots of autonomy given to the assigner). The results were likewise a mix. The thesis to all of this: centralized control is good and boards are not very helpful. This is probably why IAABO struggles to evolve and stay relevant.