2019-20 NFHS: Rumors/Desires?

[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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

A few years ago, had a high school announcer doing an over-excited, "cheerleader", play by play, as is often done in those summer pro-am games. Mentioned it to my partner, who was the referee, and a highly respected official, between the first and second periods. He seemed to think that we should just ignore it. I guess that he started listening to the announcer in the second period, because going into halftime he told the announcer to knock it off.

One memorable announcement that stuck in my mind, "How can she (visiting player) miss such an easy layup?".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

NFHS POEs are a bunch of hooey.

While it may be true that most NFHS Points of Emphasis are no more than, "Yada. Yada. Yada", some, over the years, have been beneficial: Acknowledging And Granting Timeouts, Protecting The Free Thrower, Hand Checking, and Contact Above The Shoulders (maybe the best one).



I am of the opinion that many of these Points should be permanently etched as rules in the NFHS Rulebook, for all, especially new officials, to study.

[JRutledge]

Bottom line, call more PC fouls and amazingly players either pass the ball or pull up for a jumper. You do not need a rule or an area to prevent this from happening. Actually, you might cause more problems and inconsistency. Call more PC fouls and penalizing defenders that do nothing wrong. Problem solved.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Bottom line, call more PC fouls and amazingly players either pass the ball or pull up for a jumper ... Call more PC fouls ... Problem solved.

That's exactly what we need to do here in Connecticut.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While it may be true that most NFHS Points of Emphasis are no more than, "Yada. Yada. Yada", some, over the years, have been beneficial: Acknowledging And Granting Timeouts, Protecting The Free Thrower, Hand Checking, and Contact Above The Shoulders (maybe the best one).



I am of the opinion that many of these Points should be permanently etched as rules in the NFHS Rulebook, for all, especially new officials, to study.

The fact that these POE dont remain as part of the rule book is exactly why the elbow above the shoulders contact POE is one of the worst POE's in my opinion. Especially given the conversations at the local association level when this came about didnt give me a lot of confidence that not quite a majority understood the POE completely in our meetings.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

The fact that these POE don't remain as part of the rule book is exactly why the elbow above the shoulders contact POE is one of the worst POE's in my opinion.

This is a problem with any Point of Emphasis that doesn't make it's way into the rulebook.

How is a new official supposed to know about such when there is no mention of such in the current rulebook?

By an oral tradition of old, grizzled, veteran officials sitting around a campfire telling scary stories about old Points of Emphasis to young'uns?



This NFHS issue has always perplexed me.

Same issues with annual interpretations that don't make their way into the current casebook, or with casebook plays that drop out of the current casebook for no apparent rational, or publicized reason.

Why hasn't the NFHS realized that the Mesopotamians invented written language over 5000 years ago and that Gutenberg invented the movable type printing press in fifteenth century?

These were good inventions, the NFHS should use them.

Stupid NFHS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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 here, while it was enforced for a while after the rules were changed, it has largely reverted back to the way it was.

The game, as called in this area, is dramatically different than what you see on nationally televised NCAA games (tourney included). It is much more physical, in general, and things that are almost always called a foul at the NCAA D1 level are criticized here if you call them.