Time for a Rule Review?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I work both. All that history stuff is irrelevant to me (as you can tell in my convos with BillyMac). The college rule has been the way it now for a while now. Every time I work I make sure I'm prepared to properly adjudicate technical fouls based on that game's rule set.

History can be dangerous if overthought but can be useful sometimes in understanding where coaches (and, regrettably, sometimes partners) are coming from. In my mind, it is helpful to know that something used to be a rule because there can be a difference between a coach who is just clueless and a coach remembering an old rule. (As I've said on here before, I ref soccer not basketball. I have on numerous occasions told a coach "That was a rule, but it changed several years ago." In my experience it enhances credibility: on one hand it shows I listened to him and understood what he said, and at the same time establishes detailed rule knowledge. YMMV.

(And yes, I'll confess that I also (more so than many) find the evolution of the rules and he changes that get made over time fascinating. And while the reasons for those changes often aren't relevant to enforcement and application, I find that understanding the thought process behind them, even when I disagree with the rationale, makes it easier to remember what they are. Again, YMMV)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by coachjdb

not looking for a rule review was just confirming the rule to begin with. Just seems odd that their is no effect to the course of play on the court when a personal foul is committed. I get it that there is a player/team foul but that does not address course of play. I assume this is a good rule to discourage the player from the tech in the first place. Thanks for the responses.

In high school, they have essentially determined that all technical fouls carry the penalty of two shots and the ball. It's intentionally a more severe penalty.

My question for you is this. In the other post, you noted that you are a "Terps fan who is also a ref" or something like that. What level do you officiate?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by deecee

He's a college coach. College T's are POI except for dead ball contact and flagrant 2 T's which are midcourt opposite the table to the offended team.

Not sure why it is different but in NCAAM, at least, you can put the ball back in play on either side of court.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

In high school, they have essentially determined that all technical fouls carry the penalty of two shots and the ball. It's intentionally a more severe penalty.

BNR won't care, but going back to the history comments, it is more precise to say that HS did not follow NCAA in lessening the punishment for certain Ts. Ts in both HS and NCAA used to be 1 FT and the ball. Around the same time (earlyish 80s?) they each went to 2 FTs. Some time later NCAA introduced POI for some Ts.

(Many may recall the infamous Fab Five excessive time out call by Chris Weber, which turned over the ball in addition to the FTs.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

BNR won't care, but going back to the history comments, it is more precise to say that HS did not follow NCAA in lessening the punishment for certain Ts. Ts in both HS and NCAA used to be 1 FT and the ball. Around the same time (earlyish 80s?) they each went to 2 FTs. Some time later NCAA introduced POI for some Ts.

(Many may recall the infamous Fab Five excessive time out call by Chris Weber, which turned over the ball in addition to the FTs.)

We're back to 1 FT for all Class B and Administrative T's on the men's side.

NCAA-W lose possession for an excessive time-out.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

In high school, they have essentially determined that all technical fouls carry the penalty of two shots and the ball. It's intentionally a more severe penalty.

My question for you is this. In the other post, you noted that you are a "Terps fan who is also a ref" or something like that. What level do you officiate?

I'm a college official who is the father of a Terps fan, does that count?

And I know Randy Edsall's brother.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We're back to 1 FT for all Class B and Administrative T's on the men's side.

Thanks, I had forgotten that -- I'm obviously not watching enough hoops on TV! And it's a distinction I like -- 1 FT for the "technical" technical fouls makes a lot of sense to me. (Not that anyone cares what I think makes sense . . .)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Thanks, I had forgotten that -- I'm obviously not watching enough hoops on TV! And it's a distinction I like -- 1 FT for the "technical" technical fouls makes a lot of sense to me. (Not that anyone cares what I think makes sense . . .)

I would like for NFHS to at least go to POI for those types of infractions.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would like for NFHS to at least go to POI for those types of infractions.

They get stupid enough at this level. I'm fine with the "extra" penalty.

[jTheUmp]

I have the opposite opinion... I'd prefer the NFHS stay as it is, for two reasons:
1) it's simpler to remember: Enforce in order of occurrence.
2) It makes technical fouls more costly in situations exactly like is described in the OP. If you ("you" meaning: a team/player) don't like it, don't get a T... simple as that.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm a college official who is the father of a Terps fan, does that count?

And I know Randy Edsall's brother.

I know of a college basketball official named Duke Edsall.

Who is this Randy Edsall that you speak of?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

IIRC, the college rule used to be the same as the current HS rule. In essence, college softened the consequences of certain Ts. And IIRC, it was some years after they had increased the consequences of a T by going from 1 FT to 2.

Took the words out of my mouth. In fact the "softening" of technical foul penalty weight in college is an ongoing trend. For example, in NCAAM, the rule was changed this year where Class B techs have decreased from 2 FTs to 1.

There's less tolerance for technical fouls, at least from a rules committee philosophical standpoint, in high school. Hence the penalties are more severe. In addition, I think there's a NFHS rules committee desire to keep technical foul administration very simple and consistent for HS officials. So while I personally would prefer to use the POI in NFHS games like NCAA does, I don't see it ever happening at the HS level.

Also, no disrespect to BNR, but I respectfully disagree about his indifference to rules history. It matters. Helps avoid past mistakes, and helps keep rules changes in context, especially if you have to explain them to a partner who's having a brain fart (like I did yesterday when my partner almost gave bonus free throws for an illegal screen ).

[Raymond]

I don't need historical context to get the rules right today. Every week I have to jump back and forth from high school to college rules, that's enough to keep in my head without worrying about what somebody thought a rule was 5 years ago.

Officials who always bring up old rules are the ones I always find interpreting today's rules wrong

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't need historical context to get the rules right today. Every week I have to jump back and forth from high school to college rules, that's enough to keep in my head without worrying about what somebody thought a rule was 5 years ago.

Officials who always bring up old rules are the ones I always find interpreting today's rules wrong

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I think for some it can be helpful, but it depends on personality and how you learn. For me, it helps put things in context and remember the rules. For others, it clutters things up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Officials who always bring up old rules are the ones I always find interpreting today's rules wrong

It's a double edged sword. Knowing the history of a rule can help some understand the context of a rule but it can also cause confusion if some have trouble separating the past from the present.