2019-20 NFHS: Rumors/Desires?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The restricted area is another change to high school basketball that is floating around. Minnesota and North Dakota have already adopted it on there own, so maybe this could be the year it goes national. I'd be on board with a restricted area coming to high school basketball, because it would prevent most charges under the basket (the only exceptions would be for primary defenders or players during rebounding activity), increase safety for the players, and make at least some block/charge calls easier. This would also lessen the learning curve of high school officials who want to go to the college level, because the restricted area won't be so alien to them once they have learned to call games using it.

God no. We have enough problems at the other levels with this and now you want to have officials that can hardly call a simple play like this and add something else.

Everything from other levels does not make it better. NF Rules are not for you to be prepared at the other levels. Football and Baseball officials do just fine with other rules when they move up the latter.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Everything from other levels does not make it better. NF Rules are not for you to be prepared at the other levels.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

God no ...now you want to have officials that can hardly call a simple play like this and add something else.

Agree.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... a struggling, deer in the headlights, young official, who barely knows if the basketball is stuffed, or inflated.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The restricted area is another change to high school basketball that is floating around. Minnesota and North Dakota have already adopted it on there own, so maybe this could be the year it goes national. I'd be on board with a restricted area coming to high school basketball, because it would prevent most charges under the basket (the only exceptions would be for primary defenders or players during rebounding activity), increase safety for the players, and make at least some block/charge calls easier. This would also lessen the learning curve of high school officials who want to go to the college level, because the restricted area won't be so alien to them once they have learned to call games using it.

I see no reason why we need to get rid of charges under the basket. "Because NCAA and NBA have the RA" isn't good enough for me. Neither is "it'll prepare players and officials for the next level."

Yet again, another solution looking for a problem.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I see no reason why we need to get rid of charges under the basket. "Because NCAA and NBA have the RA" isn't good enough for me. Neither is "it'll prepare players and officials for the next level."

Yet again, another solution looking for a problem.

We finally agree on something!!!

Anything that involves adding/removing lines on the actual playing floor (not OOB) or anything else that costs schools money would not be implemented right away anyways.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

God no. We have enough problems at the other levels with this and now you want to have officials that can hardly call a simple play like this and add something else.

Everything from other levels does not make it better. NF Rules are not for you to be prepared at the other levels. Football and Baseball officials do just fine with other rules when they move up the latter.

Peace

Agree.

The quickest way to improve safety and reduce charges under the basket is to call the charges under the basket when they happen....all without a rule change. The reason it becomes a safety issue is some officials refuse to call it and that encourages the offense to fly into defenders because they know they can.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree.

The quickest way to improve safety and reduce charges under the basket is to call the charges under the basket when they happen....all without a rule change. The reason it becomes a safety issue is some officials refuse to call it and that encourages the offense to fly into defenders because they know they can.

We must agree to disagree here. The reason why charges occur under the basket is because defenders are able to legally set up there and get rewarded for it by earning the foul call. If a defender must set up at some distance from the basket, then that challenges him to contest the shot and get a rebound should the shot miss, not be a human shield to take away a score at the expense of potential serious injuries to either player. This would also allow the offensive player the time and distance to react before he leaves his feet on anew attempt to score at the basket.

On a fast break, a player who is running full steam might not be able to come to a stop quickly enough to avoid a player who shows up under the basket. Because the player had position, it was a charge, but this call benefited neither the defender nor the offensive player from a safety perspective. If a defender sets up farther away from the basket, the ball handler might notice him sooner and be able to avoid him more quickly.

A similar scenario might occur when a defender rotates over to help a player who is beaten inside the lane, and ends up directly in an offensive player's path. Because time and distance does not apply to the ballhandler, he is being penalized for being unable to stop his movement, not for executing any specific illegal actions. The restricted area rule is specifically written to disallow any illegal actions by the offensive player (unnatural use of the hand, arm, leg, or knee, a distinct pushoff, etc.), while not penalizing him for his momentum.

The restricted area was created in the NBA, NCAA, and FIBA to avoid these exact scenarios, as well as possible variations on these scenarios. Perhaps, if the NFHS is focused on risk minimization and improving player safety, it is time to add this change to NFHS as well. There is no reason from a basketball standpoint for a defender to risk injury by being in a position where it is difficult to contest a shot, rebound, or perform another basketball play. The offense also benefits, because it becomes easier for them to drive legally to the basket.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

We must agree to disagree here. The reason why charges occur under the basket is because defenders are able to legally set up there and get rewarded for it by earning the foul call. If a defender must set up at some distance from the basket, then that challenges him to contest the shot and get a rebound should the shot miss, not be a human shield to take away a score at the expense of potential serious injuries to either player. This would also allow the offensive player the time and distance to react before he leaves his feet on anew attempt to score at the basket.

Call more PC fouls and amazingly players start pulling up more. So you can disagree if you like, but been doing this long enough or been calling enough PC fouls in games where somehow the players adjust.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Call more PC fouls and amazingly players start pulling up more.

Maybe a new NFHS Point of Emphasis? Maybe one with some teeth and a lot of publicity? And followup education by state, and local, associations?

But, would that really help? Maybe it's worth a try?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe a new NFHS Point of Emphasis? Maybe one with some teeth and a lot of publicity? And followup education by state, and local, associations?

But, would that really help? Maybe it's worth a try?

They could do this for sure but that would not change what I do and what many do that teach officiating. We call charges in my world. A POE is great, but it does not change what the rules have been saying for years.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We call charges in my world. A POE is great, but it does not change what the rules have been saying for years.

I can't speak regarding other areas, but we've been told by our local, and state, interpreters, and by IAABO International observers, that we have three main problems in regard to player control fouls being called here in Connecticut.

1) When a train wreck occurs in the paint, officials are more likely to call an incorrect blocking foul than a incorrect player control foul (or an incorrect team control foul in the case of a ball handler that passes).

2) When a train wreck occurs in the paint, officials are often likely to pass (no whistle) on close, really tough, calls rather than charge either a blocking foul, or a player control foul (or team control foul).

In other words, the default calls in Connecticut for close, really tough, train wrecks that occur in the paint seem to be blocking fouls, or nothing, and these default calls are often incorrect.

3) When a train wreck occurs in the paint, trail officials (two person Connecticut) seldom, if ever, make a call, most likely because they don't want to make a call outside their primary coverage area, or because they pass (no whistle) on close, really tough, calls rather than charge either a blocking foul or a player control foul (or team control foul).

In train wreak situations in the paint, we have been advised (over and over again) to observe the defense, that if a defensive player legally establishes, and legally maintains (including legal movements) a legal guarding position, to call a player control foul (or a team control foul), especially with contact on the defender's torso, and if otherwise, call the blocking foul.

We've also been advised (over and over again) that the trail should offer help in such train wreck situations in a normal "help manner", wait a split second for the lead to make a call, if the lead doesn't, put a whistle on the play using the guidelines in the paragraph above. Of course, use patience, good eye contact, and good communication, to avoid "blarges".

We've been advised (over and over again) that we don't have to be 100% sure to put a whistle on these dangerous plays. 51% should suffice for an "educated guess" whistle. No whistle means that we'll be wrong on train wrecks almost 100% of the time.

Put a whistle on such plays, use strong, confident looking signals, verbalize with a strong, confident voice, and be confident that your game management skills will keep the coaches under control.

Our local interpreter of many years ago use to say, "The best wrong call is a strong wrong call".

[JRutledge]

What officials wear or do not wear is not up the state or organization. We have states that have officials in all kinds of uniforms with different styles. Not sure why we think that what the NF says (And no state has to follow any mechanics or uniform requirements anyway) matters.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Myself, I call player control fouls whenever a defender in a legal guarding position is displaced by an offensive player. Unlike many officials, I do not default to "block" as my call when it is uncertain what happened. I tend to call PC fouls when the offensive player runs through a defensive player, even if the LGP status is undetermined (but not when a player is out of bounds). For me, being in the restricted area would be analogous to being out of bounds, since one cannot establish legal guarding position out of bounds, so that might be an analogy that could help officials if the restricted area were to be adopted.

However, my #1 desire for a rule change would be the shot clock. A restricted area would be more like #2 or #3, along with modifying the bonus rules to have the offended team awarded 2 free throws starting with the 5th foul in each quarter. 2 shots after 5 would be easier to administer than the current mishmash of 1-and-1 after 7 and 2 after 10 in a half.

[SC Official]

The only thing the RA would lead to, in my area, is incorrect player control fouls and coaches going nuts. We have 20- through 40-year officials that haven't been to a camp or done any self-improvement in decades and aren't trained to officiate from the feet up. They're not going to change overnight and some never will change.

There is nothing the RA can solve at the high school level that can't be solved by correctly adjudicating block/charge plays under the basket as the rule is now, and defaulting to PC on 50/50 plays.

A solution whose only problem is "because college."

[SC Official]

Also, NFHS POEs are a bunch of hooey.

How many times was hand checking a POE before they realized people still weren't calling it and a rule change was needed?

What about the "team control during a throw-in is only for foul purposes" mess that seems to be in there every year but people still can't get it right and they won't rewrite the rule?

And what about the one about PA announcers a few years ago? Who actually enforces that?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The only thing the RA would lead to, in my area, is incorrect player control fouls and coaches going nuts. We have 20- through 40-year officials that haven't been to a camp or done any self-improvement in decades and aren't trained to officiate from the feet up. They're not going to change overnight and some never will change.

There is nothing the RA can solve at the high school level that can't be solved by correctly adjudicating block/charge plays under the basket as the rule is now, and defaulting to PC on 50/50 plays.

A solution whose only problem is "because college."

Then why did Minnesota and North Dakota choose to implement this rule on their own? Did they consciously seek to copy college basketball, or did they have their own reasons for doing so? Maybe they thought that having people standing in close proximity to the basket and choosing to get themselves run over was such a safety problem that they needed to address it with a rules change, or they might have enough competent officials in those parts to not make a mess out of the restricted area.

I haven't seen many people post about changing the bonus rules. This is surprising, because it is at least the 2nd straight year that changes to the bonus rules appear in the questionnaire.