NFHS 2018-19 Rule Proposals ...

[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.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

Love this thinking. Also it speeds up the game due to less FTs total per game. With so many officials leaving every year and more double and triple headers it helps the games end faster.

[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.

[BillyMac]

When the bonus goes into effect, would everything (common foul) be two shots? No more one and one?

For players fouled in the act of shooting, with the ball going in, or not going in, will everything be the same as it is now?

Please help me to understand.

ART. 1 Bonus free throws are those awarded for a common foul (except a player-control or team-control foul) as follows:
a. The bonus is two free throws that are awarded for each personal foul, and each subsequent foul, beginning with the sixth foul in each quarter.
b. The team foul total should be zeroed out at the end of each quarter, with the exception of any overtime period. The overtime period is considered an extension of the fourth quarter.
Rationale: This rule change proposal is designed to allow for a better flow of the game, and spend less time at the free throw line. During free throw administration the potential for numerous negative acts to occur, with up to seven players is a confined area. This proposal also provides for only one number of free throws awarded regardless if the foul was committed during a try or after reaching the bonus foul count (two free throws for all). This change has been implemented in the NCAA women's game for the past two years, and even with their bonus going into effect on the 5th foul, only 22% of the time do teams reach the bonus. This will reduce the amount of time it takes to complete a game, especially critical on a school night that proceeds a school day.

[JamesBCrazy]

Right. No more 1+1, the bonus is always two shots unless it's in the act of shooting, where it's one or three in the same cases it's one or three right now.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JamesBCrazy

No more 1+1 ...

That sounds like an improvement in terms of reducing errors, both correctable errors, and communication mistakes before the lead bounces the ball to the free throw shooter.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 believe that I'll change my recommendation to a thumbs up. This change will lead to fewer errors rather than more errors, as I originally believed. I'll send a quick text to Theresia before her committee makes any final decisions. Now, if I could only convince her not to go with a multicolored ball, that would make my day.



(Yeah, I know this image doesn't represent the proposed rule, but in my mind, it does.)