IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...O0M%2F5w%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a Charge.

Blue #10 drives into the lane and jumps to pass the ball to a teammate in the lane. The defender obtains a legal guarding position (2 feet on the floor, facing the opponent) before Blue #10 became airborne. (4-23-5d) Since the defender obtained a legal guarding position, Blue #10 is responsible for the contact. In NFHS rules, this would be a team control foul. (4-19-7)

A high percentage of respondents ruled this play to be a player control foul. A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter. (4-19-6) Even though the administration of the penalties is the same as the team control foul, it is not accurate to refer to this as a player control foul. Blue #10 no longer had control of the ball once he released the ball on the pass. (4-12-1, 4-12-2b) Had Blue #10 released the ball on a try for goal instead of a pass and then charged, a player control foul would have been committed by rule.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a Charge 41% (including me). This is Player Control foul 39%. This is incidental contact (NCC - No Call Correct) 13%. This is a Blocking foul 5%. This is a Flop 2%.

Player/Team Control ???
 

Wow! Who bet the over?

What's Going On (Marvin Gaye, 1971) ...
 

Since the administration of the penalties is the same for both team control fouls and player control fouls, in the heat of a real game, it's nothing more than a minor faux pas for an official to give the wrong signal, or the wrong verbal description.

But this isn't in the heat of a real game, it's a video situation that can be played and replayed, and where multiple choice answers point to a differentiation of the two type of fouls, and I am very disappointing in the survey results.

Any official that gets this wrong can still be a great official, a great partner, well respected by assigners, colleagues, coaches, and players, but seeing such poor survey results still leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "What going on?".

For the record, at the NCAA Men's level and under the CCA Mechanics, the signal for TC and PC fouls are exactly the same. It is the hand behind the head no matter what kind of foul you are calling. Terminology is different, but it must be noted that the officials are not supposed to just point as in the past.

Peace

Certs, Two Mints In One ...
 

... a candy mint and a breath mint.

I believe tht the NFHS Rules Committee had a suggestion on the table to have one signal for both, but it was the "punch" signal.

We'll find out in a few weeks if the suggestion was approved.

Anticipation (Carly Simon, 1971) ...
 

Last year's 2020-21 high school basketball rule changes were announced by the NFHS on May 11, 2020.

Can you feel the anticipation in the air?

Here is the CCA Manual change that took place this year.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...=278&crop=fill

Peace

Willy-Nilly ...
 

Thanks JRutledge.

Because of confusion with the “count the basket” signal the fist punch signal has been eliminated.

I'm pretty sure that the NCAA/CCA didn't just come up with this change Willy-nilly in an unplanned, haphazard fashion, and based it on some rational thought.

So why did the NFHS ignore this careful and thoughtful NCAA/CCA decision and decide to explore the possibility of doing just the opposite (fist punch)?

There were several plays in the NCAA tournament where the officials looked like they might have been counting the basket, but were calling PC fouls without a hand behind their head. So this helped change the mechanic. It was hard to do for things like Illegal screens but I got there kind of eventually.

Peace

Did The NFHS Just Flip A Coin ???
 

I understand the rationale, and recall a Forum thread about that, with some videos.

So why did the NFHS ignore those NCAA/CCA reasons for the change and go down the road not taken, exploring the possibility of just using the punch signal, and eliminating the NCAA/CCA favored hand behind the head signal, going against all rational thought?

Of course, I'm jumping the gun here, we'll have to wait a few weeks to see what the NFHS decides to do, if anything, with these PC/TC signals.

https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pima...2_s550x406.jpg

Doesn't the NF want to be unique?

Peace

Unique ...
 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost, 1915

NCAA-Women's does not use the same signals for offensive fouls that NCAA-Men's do, so it's not as simple as copying what the NCAA does. Each organization does what they feel like doing.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others ...
 

... One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?

So it's possible that the NCAAM will be the odd man out.

Interesting.

Each committee does not give a crap what the other one does. They worry about their game and their game only for the most part. As should be expected. That is why women has quarters and men have halves. They have different concerns.

Peace