NFHS Basketball Questionnaire

[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.

[Nevadaref]

With NCAAW shifting to quarters, the current trend looks to be playing quarters at all levels of competition.
HS = 8 minutes, college = 10 minutes, NBA = 12 minutes, FIBA = 10 minutes

[crosscountry55]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the "unintentionally slapping the backboard in a legitimate attempt to block the shot is BI" idea.

I hate it. The NFHS realizes no one is calling Ts for backboard slaps anymore and that most are borderline situations where there's at least some reasonable doubt about the player's intentions. Yet the offended coach always stands up and yells, "that's goaltending!" proving time and time again that most coaches know nothing about the rules.

Meanwhile the NCAA wrote a very nice rule change a couple years back that adds such a BI clause when the ball is on/in the basket or in the cylinder. That makes sense, especially in college where many backboards are portable and therefore less rigid.

The way the NFHS idea was written in the survey, it seems like we want to start calling BI when the backboard gets slapped on a shot regardless of the ball's location at the time. I don't like that idea; you would end up deterring a lot of good shot block attempts, and coaches would still be PO'd, only this time when on defense vice offense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'm surprised no one has brought up the "unintentionally slapping the backboard in a legitimate attempt to block the shot is BI" idea.

I think that would be a horrible idea. For one HS kids are often trying to block shots and even the college rule it is a judgment call. Officials would still not call it unless you say any touch of the backboard is a violation.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I hate it. The NFHS realizes no one is calling Ts for backboard slaps anymore and that most are borderline situations where there's at least some reasonable doubt about the player's intentions. Yet the offended coach always stands up and yells, "that's goaltending!" proving time and time again that most coaches know nothing about the rules.

Again, not very many reasons to even call a T. It is rare and it is often an attempt to make a block missed. Most kids are not getting up there in the first place. A none issue.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Meanwhile the NCAA wrote a very nice rule change a couple years back that adds such a BI clause when the ball is on/in the basket or in the cylinder. That makes sense, especially in college where many backboards are portable and therefore less rigid.

Still waiting for even a situation to call this and it has not happen. And I rarely see this ever happen on TV. Again, a none issue.

Peace

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Agreed.

[BillyMac]

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.

True within three feet, but it's a lot easier to officiate such action if the defender is between three feet and six feet away.

Setting the distance at three feet will encourage defenders to get closer to get a count going which will also set up a situation where contact, or a held ball, or a timeout, is likely.

These situations are unlikely with a count going at six feet, where a defender may just settle for a five second closely guarded violation, and will not have to move in for the coup de grâce.

[MechanicGuy]

Only change I want is to make the equipment rules punishable beyond making the player change/remove the item. Force the coaches to be the fashion police instead of us.

If they have to sit an entire game because players run on the court with illegal leg sleeves, they probably won't make that mistake a second time.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Only change I want is to make the equipment rules punishable beyond making the player change/remove the item. Force the coaches to be the fashion police instead of us.

If they have to sit an entire game because players run on the court with illegal leg sleeves, they probably won't make that mistake a second time.

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.