NFHS Basketball Questionnaire

[APG]

Questionnaire is live

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...uestionnaires/

[mtn335]

I was skeptical of the 5-foul-per-quarter bonus added in NCAA-W this season, but I'm now a fan. Coaches dwell less on foul count, and we shoot fewer total free throws.

On the other hand, burn the advance-the-ball option. Burn it with fire. I say.

[Rich]

I like that. Of course we went to 18-minute halves this season.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

girls prep school game

Originally Posted by BillyMac

held balls

You're damn right Billy.

[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.