NFHS Basketball Questionnaire

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I hope they don't try to change closely guarded to 3 feet. As said in another thread this week, the justification for the change to 6 feet in women's was the thought that it would decrease the fouls from the defense. I think this would be a problematic change.

Agreed. It's counter-intuitive to ask officials to emphasize the hand-checking guidelines and then make a rule change which brings defenders closer to BH/Ds in order to initiate a closely-guarded count.

[Refhoop]

PLEASE get rid of the 1 and 1 bonus and lets shoot two always!
All the unnecessary contact and resetting players after that first shot is silly...

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

PLEASE get rid of the 1 and 1 bonus and lets shoot two always!
All the unnecessary contact and resetting players after that first shot is silly...

Completely disagree (though I understand why it would make it easier for referees in many ways). So called double bonus is an additional penalty. Regular bonus is a benefit to the team that commits fewer fouls over the course of the game such that at end game they have a greater opportunity to escape the foul with no points given up. (I initially disliked the double bonus, but over time think that it is a good balance in punishing too many fouls.)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Completely disagree (though I understand why it would make it easier for referees in many ways). So called double bonus is an additional penalty. Regular bonus is a benefit to the team that commits fewer fouls over the course of the game such that at end game they have a greater opportunity to escape the foul with no points given up. (I initially disliked the double bonus, but over time think that it is a good balance in punishing too many fouls.)

Originally Posted by Refhoop

PLEASE get rid of the 1 and 1 bonus and lets shoot two always!
All the unnecessary contact and resetting players after that first shot is silly...

BTW, among the reasons why NCAAW went to two shots after the 5th foul was to reduce contact during FTs. They also wanted to increase scoring.

Removing one potential CE is a nice added benefit.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

BTW, among the reasons why NCAAW went to two shots after the 5th foul was to reduce contact during FTs. They also wanted to increase scoring.

Removing one potential CE is a nice added benefit.

The two-shot foul should discourage fouling, as the penalty appears to be stiffer.
But honestly, the kid that misses the first in high school is likely to miss the second one...
Here's an idea: stop fouling!

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

The two-shot foul should discourage fouling, as the penalty appears to be stiffer.
But honestly, the kid that misses the first in high school is likely to miss the second one...
Here's an idea: stop fouling!

I don't even know where to start.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I would like to know to what extent, if any, are coaches held responsible for their players wearing illegal uniforms, undershirts, etc. I get the feeling that they aren't held responsible at all, and therefore policing those rules has been left to us.

Issue fines to schools whose coaches aren't abiding the rules. Making it warning the first time, then a small fine, etc... I don't care. But we have enough to think about and do for the actual game.

And if they care so much about those fashion rules, then this is the best way to avoid them being broken.

We are on the court 15 minutes prior to the game starting. Only one of us is checking the book at the 10-minute mark. Other than the captain's meeting that takes a minute or two, what else do we have to do during those 15 minutes? I'm not trying to be a wise ass, I'm serious. If officials would just take care of the uniform stuff consistently early in the season, it would eliminate most of the headaches. There would still be some teams that wouldn't figure it out, but most would. I can think of two girls' teams right now where I made them change something earlier in the season then saw them again later in the season and they were completely in line with the uniform rules. I'm not taking credit for it, but they figured it out somewhere along the line between those games.

I've heard about a half dozen coaches this season tell me that no one has made them match headbands/leg sleeves/etc all year, and these aren't coaches who I think would lie about this.

Every sport has administrative type rules like this. Football has uniform and equipment rules that the officials have to enforcd. Baseball has rules about sleeve color, etc. Just take care of it and move on. If they don't like it, they'll get over it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Agreed. It's counter-intuitive to ask officials to emphasize the hand-checking guidelines and then make a rule change which brings defenders closer to BH/Ds in order to initiate a closely-guarded count.

Agree. I worked a Connecticut girls prep school game last week where we used three feet. Tough situation to officiate, counting five, and watching for hand checking, held ball, timeouts, and everything else that happens in a high school girls game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. I worked a Connecticut girls prep school game last week where we used three feet. Tough situation to officiate, counting five, and watching for hand checking, held ball, timeouts, and everything else that happens in a high school girls game.

I don't see how 3 feet would be any more difficult to officiate than 6 feet. If the player is inside 3 feet you're counting anyway.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't see how 3 feet would be any more difficult to officiate than 6 feet. If the player is inside 3 feet you're counting anyway.

If your mind is focused on the fact that something has changed, then until you get used to the change and it becomes second nature (like 6 feet is now), I could see how some could have problems taking it all in.

[SNIPERBBB]

Many guys dont know what 6 feet is so maybe now they can be more accurate since except for lower level ball if a player cant touch the ball handler with their arms, they aren't within 3 feet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Many guys dont know what 6 feet is so maybe now they can be more accurate since except for lower level ball if a player cant touch the ball handler with their arms, they aren't within 3 feet.

6 feet is easy, but many operate as if the rule is 3.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't see how 3 feet would be any more difficult to officiate than 6 feet. If the player is inside 3 feet you're counting anyway.

It may create more situations where their is potential contact. With 6', the defender can get a count going at 6' with little risk of contact. At 3', the chance for contact certainly rises.

[Nevadaref]

I'm in favor of five team fouls per quarter being the threshold and resetting the count with each new quarter.
Of course, the NFHS will have to specify that there is no reset of the foul count for extra periods!

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm in favor of five team fouls per quarter being the threshold and resetting the count with each new quarter.

I was neutral on that issue. The pros and cons (many of which have been articulated here) seem quite balanced.

That said, if the rule is changed, I will watch with amusement as states like MN, WI, RI, etc., try to figure out what they're going to do with the halves they currently play in. You can either suck it up and go back to quarters, or basically keep the current 1-and-1 rule as a supplemental state rule. Or perhaps compromise and eliminate 1-and-1 at 7, but go straight to two free throws at 10 for the half.