NFHS 2018-19 Rule Proposals ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The restricted area should make it easier for officials to determine block/charge situations, because it prevents the defense from benefiting from a cheap call under the basket. If a defender is allowed to set up legal guarding position under the basket after an offensive player beats his original defender, he can draw contact to prevent a score. The restricted area will prevent this from happening, unless the offensive player clearly uses an unnatural action to contact the defender or gain space. This is why I would agree more with BillyMac on a restricted area.

I do not think it makes it easier, it actually is harder in many cases. And I think many times there are calls in the RA where there would be no call. But again they want the defense to play more out on the floor, not just sit under the basket and get a call.

Peace

[scrounge]

The sleeves/tights, compression shorts shall be black or white, and the same color sleeves/tights shall be worn by teammates.
Rationale: It makes the rule easier to understand by officials, coaches & players. We are spending more time discussing what is legal & illegal with uniforms & apparel than we are spending with hand-checking, post-play, etc. It will also put more responsibility on coaches to make sure their players are dressed legally.

All sleeves/tights, compression shorts shall be black or white and must be the same color as any headband or wristband worn.
Rationale: It makes the rule easier to understand by officials, coaches & players. We are spending more time discussing what is legal & illegal with uniforms & apparel than we are spending with hand-checking, post-play, etc. It will also put more responsibility on coaches to make sure their players are dressed legally.

Headbands and wristbands shall be white or black. They must be the same color as any sleeve/tights worn. See 3-6 for logo requirements.
Rationale: It makes the rule easier to understand by officials, coaches & players. We are spending more time discussing what is legal & illegal with uniforms & apparel than we are spending with hand-checking, post-play, etc. It will also put more responsibility on coaches to make sure their players are dressed legally.

If we're spending all this time worrying about, then GET RID of these useless color restrictions, especially below the waist. Who cares what color a knee sleeve is, no one's ever been confused by that, anymore than the color of socks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by scrounge

If we're spending all this time worrying about, then GET RID of these useless color restrictions, especially below the waist. Who cares what color a knee sleeve is, no one's ever been confused by that, anymore than the color of socks.

Any "Fashion Police" rule that's made simpler is a good thing, so I like the switch to only black or white. I also like scrounge's idea to ignore from the waist down.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The restricted area was implemented for safety reasons and to improve snoring, not so officials can have an excuse not to call a charge. College coaches decided they didn't want defensive players drawing charges underneath the basket. It has everything to do with what coaches want.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The only reason it became a "safety" issue is because charges were not being called. If they had been called, there wouldn't have been a safety issue.

It was 100% about putting into rules a reason to not call the charge (as would have been the correct call) but a block instead.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only reason it became a "safety" issue is because charges were not being called. If they had been called, there wouldn't have been a safety issue. It was 100% about put into rules a reason to not call the charge (as would have been the correct call) but a block instead.

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed secondary defender/restricted area rule suggestion (from a 100% high school official):

Absolutely not. Players who take a charge should only be restricted by whether or not they have legal guarding position, not by where they are standing, or if they are a secondary defender (help defense is a good defensive play). Ball handlers shouldn’t be allowed to dribble anywhere they want with their head down charging into opponents, no matter where the defender is, or who the defender is. Most NFHS games, especially below the varsity level (junior varsity, freshman, middle school) are two person games, making it very difficult to call this NCAA rule (with all three person crews) correctly. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed flexible jersey colors:

Absolutely not. The present rules insure that we will never, ever have teams showing up with the same color jerseys. State tournaments are set up so that the higher seeded team is considered the “home” team and always wears white. Any change in the rule might lead to two teams showing up in gray jerseys, maybe one slightly darker than the other. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed basket interference/slapping the backboard rule:

Absolutely not. An unintentional slap of the backboard in a legitimate attempt to block the shot should not lead to officials having to decide if the vibration was enough to cause the ball to fall off the ring. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed bonus free throw/four period rule:

Absolutely not. The change will mean that there will now be four times in a game when poor communication between the table and the officials could lead to a correctable error (or not correctable if not caught in time). Some tables have enough trouble telling officials twice a game when a team is in the bonus. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed removal of offensive goaltending:

Absolutely not. The NFHS made offensive goaltending illegal in 1956 mainly as a result of Bill Russell, who became known as the “Funneler”, guiding his teammates shots into the basket. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed head coach/timeout restrictions:

Good change, especially in those corner “trap” situations where officials are looking at out of bounds, fouls, travels, etc., as well as those probable held ball situations where players are rolling around on the floor going after a loose ball.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed rule to allow pregame dunking:

This dates back to Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar). 1967 NFHS dunk banned in high school basketball, outlawed to prevent injury, and equipment damage. 1970 NFHS dunking prohibited during warmups. 1976 NFHS dunking allowed except before game or during intermission. 1978 NFHS may not dunk a dead ball. Absolutely not, a broken backboard, or distorted rim, could delay a game for hours. Absolutely not.

[BillyMac]

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed rule to penalize a head coach with a direct technical foul for player equipment violations:

I like the idea, but the penalty is too strong. An indirect technical foul to the head coach (for bench personnel warming up with illegal equipment (everyone is bench personnel in pregame, like a pregame dunk) forcing the coach to sit during the game, would be a strong enough penalty.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed bonus free throw/four period rule:

Absolutely not. The change will mean that there will now be four times in a game when poor communication between the table and the officials could lead to a correctable error (or not correctable if not caught in time). Some tables have enough trouble telling officials twice a game when a team is in the bonus. Absolutely not.

I disagree. Having team fouls reset in each quarter will be a greater deterrent to fouling than the current system, and will reduce the current state of weirdness in high school basketball where teams play quarters, but direction and fouls are by halves. NCAA men's basketball is consistent, because direction of play, periods of play, and fouls are by halves. NBA, WNBA, and FIBA reset direction of play at halves, but periods and fouls are quarters. If fouls and direction are by halves in NFHS, why play in quarters?

5 fouls is simpler than remembering that 7 in a half gets you one shot, and 10 gets you 2. This is especially true if , say the 1st quarter has many fouls (~5 for each team), and the bonus is reached after just 2 fouls and 5 minutes of play in the 2nd quarter, or conversely, teams intensely foul in the 4th quarter to reach the (single or double) bonus after a more subdued 3rd quarter. This is the reason why women's college basketball switched to the 5 foul per quarter system, and both the NBA and FIBA also use the 5 fouls in a quarter = 2 shot bonus system (and why men's NCAA is also experimenting with the rule in the NIT). If you change your AP indicator every quarter (in addition to any other jump balls), you can also use the time to mentally reset your foul counter, and not have to remember "is the next foul I call the bonus?". You can then count your calls and your partners' calls each quarter to determine how soon the bonus will be reached.

Why would 5 fouls a quarter deter fouling more than the current system? By eliminating the single bonus, all team fouls (except player and team control fouls) after the 4th would merit 2 free throws. Coaches would have to adjust their teams' defensive strategies to forestall giving the other team 2 guaranteed free throws on any foul. This would make fouling less palatable as a strategy late in games, because a team that fouls to stop the clock would soon be faced with the prospect of seeing the other team's lead become unreachable if the other team makes their guaranteed free throws.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here is my recommendation regarding the NFHS proposed bonus free throw/four period rule:

Absolutely not. The change will mean that there will now be four times in a game when poor communication between the table and the officials could lead to a correctable error (or not correctable if not caught in time). Some tables have enough trouble telling officials twice a game when a team is in the bonus. Absolutely not.

Not only do I think that the proposed change is an excellent idea, I hope NCAAM eventually goes that direction as well. In my opinion, it gives a better flow to the game and is easier to administer and coach. The benefits greatly exceed the small and rare downside of a correctable error, which just as easily can occur in halves anyway. Some don't like that there's an extra two last second shots to watch - that doesn't bother me a single bit as an official.

[bob jenkins]

I will add that, imo, the "reset the fouls after each quarter" is one of the best rules changes on NCAAW in recent years. I'd support it in FED.