Any rumors on 2017-18 changes?
 

For NFHS. Rules or mechanics.

New printing year for mechanics manuals. I don't want to get my hopes up.

Let The Countdown Begin ...
 

The NFHS released the 2016-17 rule changes on May 18, 2016 last year.

While Visions Of Sugarplums Danced In Their Heads ...
 

Here are your "visions of sugarplums" according to the NFHS questionnaire that came out several months ago:

Beginning with a team’s fifth foul in each quarter, shoot one-and-one; and for the seventh foul, award a bonus free throw only if the first free throw is successful.

Beginning with the eighth foul of each quarter, awarding two free-throw bonus.

Starting a quarter – with the exception of overtime period – with team fouls at zero.

Assessing an administrative technical foul to the offending team for violation of the uniform, apparel, equipment and logo/trademark reference rules.

Switching colored uniforms to the home team and white for the visitor.

Extending the correctable error rule to two dead balls after the error.

Allowing officials to stop the clock and give an official warning, which is recorded in the scorebook, for unsportsmanlike behavior by the coach or team bench, when the offense falls below the threshold for a technical foul. After the official warning, any further issues result in a technical foul.

Allowing players to wear a bandanna style (tied) headband provided it meets color and width requirements.

Extending the optional coaching box to the end line (28 feet).

Beginning each quarter with team fouls at zero and start shooting bonus one-and-one at five fouls and bonus two shots at seven fouls in each quarter.

Reducing the number of time-outs from three 60-second and two 30-second time-outs to two 60-second and two 30-second time-outs per game. (Add one 30-second to overtime)

Initiating 30-second shot clock for boys and 35-second shot clock for girls.

Changing game from four quarters to two 20-minute halves (keep the bonus at seven team fouls, one-and-one, and 10 team fouls for two shots).

Charging an indirect technical to the head coach for any illegal uniforms or illegal apparel: headbands, wristbands, arm or leg compression sleeves.

Eliminating the bonus and shooting two free throws after the fifth foul in each quarter – with the foul count restarting in each quarter.

Reducing time-outs by one.

Beginning with the seventh team foul in each quarter, award a two-shot free-throw penalty, and erase team fouls beginning in each quarter.

Eliminating closely guarded count during a live dribble in the frontcourt or backcourt.

Eliminating time-outs granted to coaches during a live ball.

I believe the committee adjourned on 12 April. It usually takes about a month for the editors to completely butcher...er, uh...I mean...make the press release.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I sent in several rules and mechanics change proposals so I am anxious to see if they listened.

Elaborate?

I have the list of all proposed changes. I'll post it later tonight.
I have no knowledge at this time of which passed and which didn't.

Just some basic stuff like cleaning up the TC foul during a throw-in language (thanks Adam), changing the goaltending rule to mirror every other major ruleset (NBA, FIBA, NCAA men and women), eliminating the resumption-of-play procedure (making it a delay of game warning), clarifying the headband rule in regard to the extensions that girls like to wear, some mechanics changes like adopting the NBA/NCAA-W floor coverage, the Lead being able to bounce the ball to the thrower on the sideline below FTLE, stuff like that.

When E. F. Hutton Talks, People Listen ...
 

I took a break from that this year. Next year I'll again try to get the same penalty (violation) for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason as the penalty (violation instead of technical foul) for deliberately delaying returning to the court after a throwin.

I've had success in the past with the NFHS throwing out ambiguous language regarding the color of compression shorts (was it same color as shorts, or same color as uniform (jersey), or same color as equipment); putting cylinder language back (inadvertently dropped, it should be five criteria, not four) in the definition of goaltending; and getting the captain's request for a defensive matchup put back (inadvertently dropped) in the rule book.

Give That Man A Cigar ...
 

Regarding backcourt? If so, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

List of proposed rule changes for consideration by the NFHS committee:
1. Increase coaching box from 14 to 28 feet.
2. Increase the coaching box as a state adoption.
3. Add language to 1-13-3 to clarify that bench personnel and players are to be in the time-out area during TOs and intermissions other than halftime.
4. Implement two-handed foul reporting instead of one.
5. Revert to the home team wearing light jerseys instead of white.
6. Restrictions on what identifying names may be placed on jerseys.
7. Specify which names may be placed where on the jerseys.
8. Sleeves and tights shall be black or white.
9. Ditto
10. Headbands and wristbands shall be black or white.
11. A rewording of the undershirt rule for clarity.
12. An attempt to change the TC and backcourt violation conflict. (IMO the language offered is incorrect and will only create further confusion.)
13. Fouls counted by quarter instead of halves. 1-1 on 5th and 6th. 2FTs on 7 and more fouls. OT is part of the 4th quarter and the fouls do NOT reset.
14. Eliminate the closely-guarded count.
15. An elbow in movement, but not excessive, making contact above the shoulders is an intentional foul.
16. Add a definition for inadvertent whistle.
17. Create an official behavior warning for coaches and bench personnel which gets reported and recorded in the book.
18. TOs by players only unless the ball is dead.
19. Ditto
20. An attempt to clarify the backcourt rule. (IMO the language used only creates more confusion.)
21. Allow a 30-second shot clock by state adoption.
22. The head coach is penalized with a direct T if a player wears illegal apparel or an illegal uniform while participating.
23. Ditto
24. Fouls by quarter. Eliminate the 1-1. 2FTs on the fifth foul and more. Doesn't specify about OT.

Tweaking the bonus rule would have been a tough sell because whether the committee liked it or not, the reality is that more than a few states have unilaterally chosen to play the game in halves.

Outside of that, some good ideas on the above list, and a few silly ones. Historically speaking, maybe one will get adopted. Maybe. The needle moves very slowly in NFHS rule making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The states that make up their own rules don't get a voice/vote on the rule changes for exactly this reason. If the NFHS decides to start counting team fouls by quarter, then the states play halves can make up their own rules on how to administer bonus free throws as well.

You're right. Adopting one's own rules without NFHS permission creates a slippery slope. Would the committee by sympathetic or apathetic to the slippery slope they might create by tweaking bonus rules? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I knows of eight states that have shot clocks and three that play the game in halves. Of those, only RI does both. So that's at least 10 states without rules committee representation that I know of, and there are probably a few more. At what point does this start to alarm the NFHS? And what do they do about it? If you gradually kick out all of your customers, eventually you either have to improve your customer service or go out of business.

While they do not get a turn in the regional rotation to have a representative on the NFHS rules committee, those states are not prohibited from submitting rules changes for the committee's consideration as evidenced by California submitting a change proposal this year.

The NCAAM post-season NIT tournament reset the fouls at 9:59 remaining of each half. This was done during play. No stoppage needed.

It's clear to me that any states playing in halves would simply take this approach.

In addition, all of those states that modify a few rules largely still go by NFHS rules for the rest and probably have their officials buy the NFHS rule books. The states can't legally distribute the NFHS rules otherwise. Some might use NCAA rules and that is certainly their right, but they're never going to get the NCAA to change anything for them.

I hope that gimmicky mess does not spread. If you want to reset the foul count, then play by quarters.

+1. Or honor the intent of two shots at 5, but simplify modify to two shots at 10 for games played in halves. Still gets rid of 1-and-1, which would reduce rough play and sometimes goofy penalty administration on free throws (the main reason NCAAW made their switch two years ago).

If anyone is annoyed by my trivial posts....sorry. It's April, and I'm kind of bored. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was the rule at the AAU tournament my son just played.

I'm personally dubious about it limiting rough play. Sure, you eliminate a few free throw rebounding events, but you also lessen the consequences of fouls because it takes longer to get to bonus. Seems to me you just get different rough play from it.

(And maybe I'm biased here, too, as back in the dark ages when I played, I worked really hard on getting offensive rebounds on FTs -- which was also easier before they moved the defender a slot further from the bucket.)

My biggest concern with waiting till 10 for the bonus in halves is that if a team only has 3 fouls and they need 7 take fouls.....it would get kind of ridiculous.

Totally agree but even the reset IMO is unnecessary.

I still think there is a premium in making FTs. And I think you should have to make them with the idea that the other team will get the ball if you miss.

Also I think all of that would be good if we played a longer game. Thirty-Two minutes is not a lot of time. And if a team plays a certain way you will never get to 10 fouls. Now you are promoting for fouls that will not result in FTs at a certain point of the game. I just do not like that standard. I will adjust if this is a change, but I am not sure what they are trying to accomplish other than being the same as another level, when the biggest amateur level does not even use that rule or play quarters.

Peace

WI and MN didn't change the bonus rule, but did go to 36 minutes in recent years. I'd be willing to bet what you pointed out was part of that calculus. Plus....as both a player and fan, 32 minutes goes by way too fast. You can barely get to and from the concession stand without missing a third of the game. I like 36 minutes a lot.


I'm not the PC police, but you're lucky there aren't too many female officials on this forum. That's a provocative thing to say.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. Im not sure id do anything different. Waiting til 10 fouls for any FTs will certainly benefit defense. I think with rule changes etc and my opinion of game, i want free flowing movement. Cutters get to cut, dribblers dribble etc. I might actually favor less fouls to reach bonus. 10 fouls promotes aggressive play. Now, if we reduce bonus to 5 fouls im not sure that teams would adjust because kids cant make FTs these days. All is above my pay grade. Id have to think a lot more to decide what i think would be best...

I dont see it as provacative.

If they were offended, so what? The reality is that most people pay attention to Men's basketball and the NBA. The Women's side is spending too much time trying to be like the WNBA which is run by the NBA. I do not think that appeals to many that support high school sports. And I have to listen all year about why the Women's college does something and we should adopt it. Well I do not want NBA rules to be NF rules, so if this is a problem for Women's officials for me or others to not accept those rules, so be it.

Peace

Am I the only on who has no idea where this came from?

I'm with you. Seeing above that people think NBA mechanics have a place in HS hoops amazes me.

Why don't/shouldn't they have a place in HS hoops?

Everybody that is in the NBA are professionals and very well trained and even evaluated on every little detail. We are not that even at the NCAA level in some cases. The table people are paid to do a job at the NBA. You might be lucky other than D1 if the person doing the shot clock is not some kid they got from the Lacrosse team. So many of the things the NBA tries or does is because they are dealing with much more competent and extensively trained officials. There are many officials that do not know when to rotate and we want to add things that they cannot even do properly that would be basic at the NBA level.

Peace

Some of the NCAAW mechanics (which are also NBA mechanics) I love and wish we had in NFHS. All those mechanics are not anything that require a higher "skill" level than the average high school referee.

That being said, I agree that NBA mechanics don't belong in high school simply because NBA officials, the best in the world, use them. (I think they call that argument post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it's been awhile since I took philosophy.) :D

Take a breath, please, Rut...

Yes, we have mechanics because "the best in the world" use them so that is great logic for a level that has totally different rules and philosophies on all kinds of things.

Peace

I'm not sure if you could tell or not, but I was agreeing with you and Rich, not disagreeing. There are NBA mechanics I prefer to NFHS, but we shouldn't implement them in high school just for the sake of being like the NBA.

I was not commenting on whether you agreed with me or not. I think the "best in the world" argument runs hollow to me and why I commented.

I was not talking about things like two-handed reporting or walking and talking, I am talking about primary coverages and philosophy for the most part the NBA holds. I think the NBA and even NCAA official is much more trained and competent to do some things. And the reality is that the NCAA has different rules which also would not easily apply to their level based on the NBA positions. At the high school level we have people that have never officiated before, that will officiate a game in the coming year. Or we have people that can hardly put two things together at the same time. Or better yet get certain officials to stop ball watching. Those are things that the NBA likely does not have to worry about in their systems. That was my point.

Peace

A peek behind the curtain reveals that 2 handed reporting and putting a warning in the book for bench decorum issues that do not rise to the level of a Tech are now part of the NFHS. Plus some editorial clean ups:)

This is the best day of my life!

I don't care whether reporting is done with one or two hands. Just be the same for everyone.
Boo, hiss on recording a warning in the book for behavior. That behavior should be a T. Officials are just afraid to make that call.

Not looking forward to seeing what the NFHS screwed up with their editorial changes. :(

Someone with supposed "inside information" made a similar comment last year. The pot was stirred, we all held our breath, and then nothing happened.

So I'll believe it when I see it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who has only done this a few years, can someone please tell me why two handed reporting is such a big deal? I don't understand why. And I'm not sure I'm smart enough to use two hands!!

It's provocative, it gets the people going.

I'll believe it when I see it, but I will cry tears of joy if it turns out to be as reality.
It looks stronger and less robotic than one hand. One hand reporting is a dinosaur and no longer allowed at any level other than NFHS. The reasonings behind it being mandated at the high school level are largely unfounded. I've never worked a game where I used two hands and the table wasn't able to understand which number I was reporting.

It won't change much for me. If I give a warning, it will simply be put in the book if this change is true. When I whack the coach later, it will simply be, "You were warned. It's in the book."

Anyone who whacks at the first unsportsmanlike behavior will have a short career. There are exceptions, but like it or not, warnings are part of the game that are here to stay. And the NFHS has been moving in that direction.....in baseball it's actually verbal warning, written warning, restriction, ejection for all but major unsportsmanlike acts.

It is because the big dogs do it that way. If they change back to 1 hand in 3-4 years, everyone will be clamoring for 1 hand reporting.

They mostly want to look like the pros. I see no other reason that makes sense.

Peace

For me, it's the fact that there's NO WAY with 2 handed reporting to catch only the beginning or the end of the report. You get it ALL with one signal.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
 

If the Officials Manual gives us 2-handed reporting, I hope they have the presence of mind to revise 2-9-1 to match.

And while they're at it, maybe get rid of that "Back to the Future" RULING in 9.12.

Then maybe also put the word "legally" back into 4-42-5a because omitting it doesn't make any difference unless they revise 6-4-5 and 6.4.5 to give us something totally different than what we're accustomed to.

And since clean ups is the topic of the day, why not correct all of the old references to 20 seconds in the rules book and casebook that last year changed to 15 seconds.

And why not mention this: please don't give us any POE's without an associated rule change.

Or should I just turn to face the strain and be satisfied with less than correct?

Making One Indyite Very Happy
 

/\ /\ /\ This is why it's so easy to go Christmas shopping for you. :)

POE's usually have rules behind them already that people are not calling correctly.

I do not think POEs have much to do with what is called. I think they are used to emphasize what the actual rule is and is misunderstood. Coaches and players often think that certain things are legal that are not. The rulebook is for everyone, not just the officials. And we already know that coaches often contest things that we call that are actual rules we have addressed.

Peace

And we have officials that cannot get on hand reporting right and now we are going to add something they do not likely understand. ;)

Peace

What is so difficult about two-hand reporting that the overwhelming majority of high school officials wouldn't be able to "get"? It's not rocket science.

The officials who do not want high school mechanics to change to two handed reporting are not the high school officials, they are college officials who then would not have a convenient way to "big time" those they consider lesser than them.




Jus' jokin'. :D

I did not say it was difficult. I said that we have people that cannot report properly or concisely when they officiate a high school game. Now you add another element to something that many officials already struggle with when using one hand (remember everyone is not a well trained official at the NF level like college or pro). If they make this change there is no real sweat off my back. I am not going to protest or even complain. I just find it funny that guys that work other levels are so worried about this issue. I would rather worry about the NF getting wording right with their rules than changing something your state can decide on their own to do. Even if the NF makes a chance, a state can say, "Nope, we are not using that mechanic." So I do not get the thumb up the behind about this one mechanic and then trying to suggest that everything about the mechanics are so necessary to the game. Which is why I feel that you want to feel like you (not you personally) know more by advocating this than just using the mechanics of the levels you work. I also work college and I have no problems transitioning from one level to another. There are many more differences I have to deal with than how I report a foul. This is just such a non-issue but it comes up as if it is going to help us actually officiate the game, when it is about more how we look when watching ourselves.

Peace

I assume part of it is learning how to present the numbers backwards so the scorekeepers read it left-to-right. I go through the number tree a couple times a year in the mirror but I doubt your regular HS official will put in the practice time to learn. A lot of them don't take it as seriously as they should anyway.

Agreed with your last point - but using a set of mechanics because an entity (NBA) puts the most time and money (in the form of research) of any other entity in order to put out the best product for the game is a great reason to use them.

Is the NF going to put in a system to invest in the officiating staff that the NBA uses?

Peace

Did the wizard you saw there pulling the levers happen to utter the words, "Go opposite table"?

Nope..The wheels of progress turned slowly:p

BTW, the wizard who shared this knowledge is in the know and involved:)

Meaning? We are talking about mechanics, not officiating skill/talent.

It takes no certain level of the latter to use a set of mechanics.

Yes and mechanics are developed based on the skill of the participants using them. There is a reason the NF in just about every sport keeps things very basic an vanilla. Again, you are dealing with people that have never officiated to people that have 50 years in the same process. You start requiring or even having things that many do not pay attention to in the first place, you might get a certain level of inconsistency. Again it seems only people that really care what the NF does are people that work other levels. Rarely do I hear a only high school officials really get upset over a mechanics change. For example my state in another sport is changing a mechanic that has been the standard in college and in pro for years. My state wants to make that change and there are already people complaining about that change to the point where there are even people suggesting they will not do the change (which will be very noticeable). Everyone is not clamoring to do what the other levels do or advocate, even if you or I feel it is a better process.

Peace

I disagree. I don't think the NBA mechanics are something that only their super-highly-trained officials can pull off. The NBA has those really good refs yes, but their system is also superior -- regardless of level of referee.

For example the NFHS says for Lead to watch rebounding when the Trail has a 3-point shooter in the corner. The NBA does the opposite, has the Lead official referee the 3-point shooter in the corner and tells Trail to close down and referee post rebounding action. This makes perfect sense for a bunch of reasons: the Lead is closer to the 3-point shooter and the Trail official naturally has a better big-picture possession-consequence view on rebounding action.

This would not be difficult for your average HS varsity ref to pick up.....it's literally the same responsibility as before, just switching up who does what. Sure there would be an adjustment period but that's not we are talking about. We are talking about which system is better, full stop.

+1. It takes 0 skill to look in a different (better) place. Probably LESS skill, if anything, to look at the play that makes the most sense. Or to dead ball switch in a way that keeps the game the most consistent.

That is a matter of opinion, but you have a right to hold that opinion. Superior is not the word I would use. Different is a better word based on the way their game is played.

Sounds wonderful, but the NBA does not have a 5 second count, which you would have to decide who can or cannot have a count. Right now the Lead has not visible counts in NF mechanics (or NCAA Men's). The Lead in NF is more concerned with post play and post activity, which also takes place differently in the context of the NBA as you cannot as easily have two defenders guard an off ball player as you can in high school. The NBA does not even allow for a zone to take place as it is in the NF or NCAA, hence the 3 second defensive violation rule.

Also it is taught by many for the Lead to take a peak at a 3 point shooter in the corner, but most high school teams are not set up to keep a player in that corner. There are no real "isolation" at that level like the NBA. And that is also a rare situation as well in the game of basketball. Closer does not make you able to get a call correct either. You have to have a Trail that knows when to transition from on the ball to off the ball, which might be a little more complicated for officials we cannot get to stop watching the ball. Officials at the high school level that are not trained well or are not experienced miss off ball stuff all the time, where is harder to get consistency on than anything on ball.

Again, we are not dealing with a system that only the average official is using. Some are newer and yes there are places that do not only use 3 person for varsity. If I had not been in enough camps where officials do not do the stuff already asked of them because they are busy ball watching or not rotating properly, then we want to add more nuance to people who have trouble with other mechanics. I see it too often and when officials get those things right on a very consistent basis, then I might suggest these additions would be better.

Peace

I'll respond in depth to the rest later but this caught my eye. Little known fact but the Lead actually is supposed to count closely guarded in their area.

NFHS Mechanics Manual 5.3.2-B-1 "Officials are responsible for a silent and visible five-second closely guarded (within 6 feet) count within their primary coverage area."

Unlike the NCAA-M manual which splits the closely guarded count between the Trail and Slot officials, the NFHS makes no such distinction.

That is all wonderful, but you realize that the NF Mechanics book is only as good as the state that chooses to use it. We were told in my state not to have a count as the lead. So even what we are discussing only applies if your state or jurisdiction chooses to use that standard. The NF book also said you can bounce or hand the ball for all throw-ins, but my state does not give that option on the end line (ever). And unless I notice differently, when I watch high school games in other media, I never see the lead give a count for closely guarded. And that has nothing to do with the NBA as they do not have such a count. They do have a different rule where they can give a count, but that does not apply to us. IJS.

Peace

JRut you can't appeal to HS mechanics in one post and then dismiss them on the next because "my state doesn't follow them exactly". You said NFHS mechanics don't have the Lead count, which is untrue. I don't give a crap about what your state does.

I'm not a fan of making change for the sake of change, or just because the guys and gals at higher levels are doing it.

Rich's point convinced me, though.

We spend so much time debating "five two" vs "fifty-two" and "blue" vs "Purple", can two-hand reporting really be more difficult than learning whether to put a hand or a fist in the air?

Actually I find it funny that people act like the NF makes all these decisions as ultimately what you do as an official. If the NF makes an official change, your state might and has in the past rejected such a change. Either way if the NF changes this or not, it is not much sweat off my back. I just reject the idea that the NBA or pros are so much better mechanically and then suggesting that a game that has different rule and even styles of play is automatically appropriate for our level.

I also said what mostly high school does and I really do not care what the book says because it does not seem to be taught that way. Now you can argue, but I have seen many state's literature or trainings where no such backing of that states. And if you have been paying attention to this site or me, many states have their own ideas of what they ultimately do. So even if the NF changes tomorrow, there are places that are going to do whatever they want to do. If you do not believe me, do a search about NF mechanics on this site of the variations from everything to the shirt those wear to if we go table side on certain mechanics. So I do not give a crap what you want the NF to do. It appears they do not care either based on history.

Peace

For what it's worth, we count as the L.

I'm not at all in agreement that this is better coverage of the post and corner. The Trail is often stacked for rebounding action on his side of the court, while the Lead is able to see between opponents who are positioning for the rebound. It also leaves the Lead without a clue about secondary defenders should A1 decide to drive from the corner to the basket.

SO my two cents (keeping in mind they are Canadian so after the exchange rate, bank fees and FIBA rules doesn't equate to much)

Only reasons to make changes to rules:

- Adapting rules or guidelines to improve game for developmental purposes. ie. THese measurements, timing issues, or rules are better for development of the game at this age/stage of development.

- Aligning rule sets so from top to bottom in the sport there is less confusion or misconception about rules.

- As the game evolves tactics/players/interpretations change. Rules need to evolve along with them to deal with changes to allow spirit of the rule to stay relative to letter of the rule.

- Clarification. If language, interp, or application all don't align making changes so all those things can be clearer in intent, meaning and application is helpful.

I See Two Problems ...
 

Dyslexic officials. Dyslexic scorekeepers.

It has nothing to do with being smart, or intelligent.

Blame Freddy ...
 

Preaching To The Choir ...
 

Amen.

Should Be In The Rulebook ...
 

Above the shoulders contact Point of Emphasis should be in the rulebook. Incidental contact? Common foul? Intentional foul? Flagrant foul?

2012-13 POE: Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.
a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

The specificity of the POE doesn't' show up in the rulebook.

A peek from behind the curtain for me as well confirms these plus States have the option to adopt the 28 foot coaches box. Points of emphasis will be freedom of movement, bench decorum, and rough play in the post.

Obviously we will need to wait for official press release but my source is one who was in the room of the meeting.

So the only real change is coaching box expansion? Or is that all that was important that was mentioned?

Peace

I'm Not Proud To Say ...
 

If your watching Connecticut, it may not only be the lead not counting. Not counting, by any official, is our biggest problem according to outside observers of Connecticut State tournament games.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300

That's My Story And I'm Sticking To It ...
 

It's "Five Two", and "Blue". I'm 100% right and everybody else that says otherwise 100% wrong.

Now, that didn't take too much time, did it? And if you don't like it, then tough tarts, and I'll take my basketball and go home. Then where will you all be without a basketball?

Period. End of discussion. Can I make myself more clear?

Questions? Forget it. I'm not taking any damn questions.

Discussion? Also forget it. Discussion is not needed when I'm right and everybody that says otherwise is wrong.

And remember. I'm already an Esteemed Forum Member and I just reached 15,000 posts.

What's the next rank above Esteemed Forum Member?

Forum King?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8z8SpgmF0sA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He's A Rebel (The Crystals, 1962) …
 

Good example. Connecticut. 100% IAABO mechanics, and even then, we have some local variations within Connecticut, and some differences with "International" guidelines.

Liked It Better The Old Way ...
 

If you're talking about the throwin kick, then I agree that the word illegal made it easier for me to understand and officiate the play. Without the word illegal it's difficult for me to understand why the throwin didn't end. I now have trouble remembering to leave the arrow alone after the new throwin. In the olden days, I do remember saying to a questioning coach, "We don't change the arrow because the kick illegally ended the throwin". That wording doesn't apply any more (but the outcome is the same).

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to
where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession
throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and
therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession
throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession
throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered.
When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking
violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A.

After trying to get officials to get their heads around the Fed's retraction of the word "legally", I just resorted to the easier route of saying that since 6-4-5 and 6.4.5A were left untouched, nothing has changed. Nobody argued with that.
But I wish they'd tell us why they make the edits that they do. For instance, by adding the words "or backboard" in 9-1-3a in the 15/16 rule, they made an obvious error. Had they been required to explain to us the reason for adding those words, they surely would have seen the error of the revision and it never would have been published.
Ah heck, I guess we take things much to seriously when we expect revisions to the books to be well thought out. Sadly.

Be careful, or I'll set your post count to a negative number. :D

Love the post, just wished you would have typed "..make myself clearer?" ;)

From what I was told, that was the only real point of consequence. There will supposedly be language put out related to the "warning" of a coach and an emphasis on, once again, calling intentional fouls.

Having a 28-foot box would make me quite happy. Let the coach go where he wants to coach as long as he's behaving himself.

Agreed. I'd get rid of the seatbelt rule, too, if it was up to me. But this would be a start.

Also agree. The less we have to police the specific location of the coach, the better.

That said, I still see a few that go too far the other way and get in front of the scorer's table. I've even had a scorer mention to me that they couldn't clearly see the game because the coach was blocking her view when we were at the far end of the court.

Yup. Me too.

If indeed the box is being expanded, I wouldn't be surprised to see more directives to "strictly" enforce the boundaries of the box since the coaches are being given an extra 14 feet. Of course, that doesn't necessarily solve the problem you mentioned.

With a 28 foot box, there's one line I would enforce closely -- the end line.

It's Two, Two, Two Mints In One ...
 

Agree, and agree again.

NCAA Changes addressed.
 

Well I had an opportunity to see JD Collins speak at a camp this weekend.

It appears that the NCAA Men's side is to going to quarters this year for sure. They also are not going to resetting fouls after 5 this year as well. The reason these things need to be investigated more and it appears coaches like to coach to the possibility of having 1 and 1 free throws. It may change in the future, but not something they will change without more data.

So if the NF changes this, they will not have the support of the most high profile level college at this time. And yes that sometimes matters if you are going to take on rules from other levels.

Peace

The women's side has done this, though. No reason why the NFHS wouldn't side with the women's rules over the men's rules *if* there was to be a change.

Wonder if we'll go back to quarters now in WI. The coaches seem to like halves, but now we'll be different than every other level.

Well if that is the case, it never seems to change a rule from college unless the Men's side accepts or changes the rule in their game. Even mechanics are often not changed unless the Men's side in general makes the change. Again my point is that the Men's side are not changing some things that people here wanted to change. I think that will likely mean that those changes will not come as quickly as some think. We already know that the NCAA Men's side does not accept the NBA way of things on many levels. And even JD Collins said, "We are not the NBA." He went on to day, "They have 64 officials on their staff, we have 850 regular D1 officials at our level." Heck my state has 5000 basketball officials that range in all years of experience as well and that is just one state. So when we have rules changes, it has to benefit everyone, not just a relatively smaller number of schools. Heck my state even has over double the amount of schools the NCAA D1 level has to play, which many of the rules use as their standard of operation.

I hope we go to halves. I think the game flows better. Heck after working several AAU games with 16 minute halves, I would rather that be the standard anyway. Only one last second shot possibility and the game just flows and runs smoother IMO. Heck you can even extend the game a minute or two a half as well and that would be better IMO.

Peace

Three, Two, One ...
 

Great point. Two instead of four. I never thought of that.

We've been playing 18-minute halves for 2 years now.

Well that seems to be the more likely move from the NF.

Peace