Prone Player–NCAA vs. NFHS

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It is too early in the morning for me to climb up into the attic but I will comment anyway.

Originally, the Casebook Play Ruling for NFHS and NCAA Men's was the same going back at least 55 years, and for NCAA Women's was the same for at least 30 years. And that ruling was that a player was entitled to any spot on the court as long as the spot was gained legally and it did not matter if the player was standing or not. Somebody can look it up for me (see above reference to my attic), the NCAA Men's and Women's Committees changed their ruling, some 20 years ago, to such that a player had to be standing in order to maintain a legally gained spot on the court.

It should be noted that the definition of Guarding and Screening for NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's have been the same (not withstanding that abomination upon the game called the Arc in the Free Throw Lane) for well over 55 years with exception of the NFHS changing the word "establish" to "obtain" which did not change the definition and application of Guarding Rule one iota.

I never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) agreed with NCAA Casebook/Approved Ruling interpretation because it cannot be defended by rule.

I have said my piece and not take part in the discussion any further other than to read subsequent posts in the thread.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: BillyMac: I know that I joke about the AP being an abomination upon the game, because I really do not like it but it is a rule change that I can live with.

P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...



P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

It not based on guarding position, or the history of the rule. It's based on coaches (who make up the rule along with ADs and commissioners) not wanting defender trying to draw charges at or near the rim without actively guarding.

And nobody associated with the NCAA has ever denied that is the reason for the rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

P.P.S.: But the the real abomination upon the game is the Arc. Every member of the NCAA Rules Committees that voted for the arc and every member since then are completely ignorant of the basis for the Guarding definition. I am done now.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It not based on guarding position, or the history of the rule. It's based on coaches (who make up the rule along with ADs and commissioners) not wanting defender trying to draw charges at or near the rim without actively guarding.

And nobody associated with the NCAA has ever denied that is the reason for the rule.

BNR:

The NCAA Rules Committee's reasoning (which I have highlighted in red) is completely flawed because it is made based upon a complete lack of knowledge of the definition of Guarding.

1) For over sixty years the cornerstone of the definition of Guarding as it relates to a play in control of the ball has been: That a player in control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he/she gains control of the ball until the moment he/she no longer has control of the ball. That sentence alone supports two bedrock principals of Guarding: (1) The no time and distance requirement obtaining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA) a LGP against a Player in Control of the Ball. And (2) there is no such thing as a "secondary" defender (no matter hard the NCAA wants to contort itself in trying to defend the term).

That means: A1 is dribbling the Ball while being guarded by B1. A1 drives past B1. The moment A1 gets past B1, A1 must expect that he can will be immediately guarded by another Team B player.


2) The phrase "without actively guarding" is absolutely sheer nonsense. There is has not ever been such a phrase in the rules book. It is a phrase used by coaches (as well as players, fans, and Jay Bilas) who have absolutely no clue as to the definition of Guarding. A great example that shows what nonsense that phrase is PLAY: B1 is standing under Team A's Basket. A1 is standing at the top of the key in Team B's Frontcourt with both feet on the floor and facing B1. Has A1 obtained/established a LGP against B1? RULING: Yes.

Furthermore, I do not know of a single basketball coach on Earth that does not teach about helping out on defense.

I will end now.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BNR:

The NCAA Rules Committee's reasoning (which I have highlighted in red) is completely flawed because it is made based upon a complete lack of knowledge of the definition of Guarding.

1) For over sixty years the cornerstone of the definition of Guarding as it relates to a play in control of the ball has been: That a player in control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he/she gains control of the ball until the moment he/she no longer has control of the ball. That sentence alone supports two bedrock principals of Guarding: (1) The no time and distance requirement obtaining (NFHS)/establishing (NCAA) a LGP against a Player in Control of the Ball. And (2) there is no such thing as a "secondary" defender (no matter hard the NCAA wants to contort itself in trying to defend the term).

That means: A1 is dribbling the Ball while being guarded by B1. A1 drives past B1. The moment A1 gets past B1, A1 must expect that he can will be immediately guarded by another Team B player.


2) The phrase "without actively guarding" is absolutely sheer nonsense. There is has not ever been such a phrase in the rules book. It is a phrase used by coaches (as well as players, fans, and Jay Bilas) who have absolutely no clue as to the definition of Guarding. A great example that shows what nonsense that phrase is PLAY: B1 is standing under Team A's Basket. A1 is standing at the top of the key in Team B's Frontcourt with both feet on the floor and facing B1. Has A1 obtained/established a LGP against B1? RULING: Yes.

Furthermore, I do not know of a single basketball coach on Earth that does not teach about helping out on defense.

I will end now.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, They want to see players attack the rim. All coaches know about help side but those in charge have simply told us where you need to be when helping. Their not thinking about LGP principles. Bilas and Duke like the arc because all their players are All Americans. Not many of those take charges. Attacking the rim and blocking shots are more exciting to most than taking charges. My kids took charges so I'm not a big fan of it but the powers that be have made their decision. They are choosing athleticism over team defense. It is what it is.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Mark, They want to see players attack the rim. All coaches know about help side but those in charge have simply told us where you need to be when helping. Their not thinking about LGP principles. Bilas and Duke like the arc because all their players are All Americans. Not many of those take charges. Attacking the rim and blocking shots are more exciting to most than taking charges. My kids took charges so I'm not a big fan of it but the powers that be have made their decision. They are choosing athleticism over team defense. It is what it is.

Big Cat:

I started officiating boys'/girls' JrHS/HS basketball in 1971 and women's college basketball in 1974 and men's college JVJrColl. in 1993. I retired from college basketball in 2008 after Junior completed his first year of JrHS/HS officiating which was before all of the arc nonsense started and I am so glad I did.

And this may be my last season period for other reasons which are not basketball related.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Big Cat:

I started officiating boys'/girls' JrHS/HS basketball in 1971 and women's college basketball in 1974 and men's college JVJrColl. in 1993. I retired from college basketball in 2008 after Junior completed his first year of JrHS/HS officiating which was before all of the arc nonsense started and I am so glad I did.

And this may be my last season period for other reasons which are not basketball related.

MTD, Sr.

My first college game was in 1990. I stopped to coach, started again then stopped cause of day job. Started again...and not sure why I still am at times...

I understand the sentiment. There are a lot of things I miss. Nowadays the game is nothing but a track meet(my games). Very little teamwork etc. I like seeing a motion offense with a back door cut etc. I don't see that in college anymore.

The players I see are much more athletic than in the past but there aren't nearly as many good basketball players IMO. It's the way it is.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BNR:

The NCAA Rules Committee's reasoning (which I have highlighted in red) is completely flawed because it is made based upon a complete lack of knowledge of the definition of Guarding.

...

MTD, Sr.

Mark, all of that is irrelevant to the conversation. Coaches wanted it, and it was put in the rule book. Doesn't matter what the history of the rule is. What matters is what it is now. I have to officiate what is in place, not what others think should be in place.

[Rob1968]

I've understood that the use of the arc was instigated to increase scoring, because of declining scores, and consequently, fan interest, attendance and TV revenue . . .
Is it not the same reasoning as for the shot clock, the 3-point field goal, the tighter calling of hand-check contact, etc.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I've understood that the use of the arc was instigated to increase scoring, because of declining scores, and consequently, fan interest, attendance and TV revenue . . .
Is it not the same reasoning as for the shot clock, the 3-point field goal, the tighter calling of hand-check contact, etc.

Only in part.

Most, perhaps all of those are fan driven. And most are changes to the actual rules and the game to achieve higher scoring.

However, the hand-check rule (more precisely, that the contact currently defined as a hand-check) is a little different. It has been there all along and used to be enforced. Officials stopped calling it over the years in the name of letting them play but it led to an undesirable game. The rules makers renewed emphasis on calling it to clean up the game and get it back, in part, to where it once was where finesse, quickness, and skill were more valued than strength and physicality.

I think Mark's main objection is that the addition of the arc was done in a way that contradicts basic principles and other rules. The change could have been accomplished more cleanly. This is not unlike the team control on a throwin fiasco where they way they did it created a mess of related rules.