New Rules 2021-2022 Announced
 

New Rules 2021-2022 Announced

What do you guys think about the Shot Clock Rule?

Peace

I'm shocked Billy hasn't responded yet. Your post has been up a full 30 minutes.

I am surprised he has not commented for several days. On a serious note (I am going to regret this but here it goes.....) but is everything alright for him?

But I was wondering why he was not here. I expected him to beat me to this post.

Peace

Pecking Order ...
 

Thanks for asking. I'm fine. IAABO hasn't published a Make the Call Video in a while, and it's off season so things have been pretty quiet on the Forum.

Plus I've been busy in the yard, lawn, flowers, vegetables, replaced rotted mailbox post, fixed the garage door, paddled with my kayak group at a new location (I write articles for the group on the history, geography, and ecology of each site), and introduced a new pullet to my backyard flock of hens (not an easy task with an existing pecking order).

I do have a life outside of basketball officiating, not much, bit it's a life.

Found out that my local board will have a banquet this year (COVID cancelled last year), but due to COVID it will be outside in July. I'll be receiving a forty year award.

I actually checked the NFHS website yesterday and there was nothing new there. It's true, you snooze, you lose.

Underwhelmed ...
 

State Associations Adoptions ...
 

So the 35 second shot clock will be added to this list?

State Associations Adoptions
State associations may individually adopt specific coverage in the
following:
1. Determining ball size for junior high boys competition.
2. Authorizing use and size of 28-foot (maximum) coaching box.
3. Authorizing use of replay equipment at the conclusion of a state
championship series contest.
4. Authorizing use of supplementary equipment to aid in game -
administration.
5. Authorizing rule exceptions to provide reasonable accommodations.
6. Authorizing use of head coverings for medical, or cosmetic (delete religious) reasons.
7. Authorizing use of a running clock when a specified point differential is
reached.
8. Determining the number of electronic media time-outs.
9. Authorizing use of one commemorative/memorial patch on the jersey

I can live with that as long as Connecticut doesn't adopt it. We use a shot clock with boys and girls private prep school varsity games and it's almost always some type of a problem.

How About A Nice Hawaiian Punch ???
 

I thought that the NFHS was considering the "punch" as the signal?

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1043260

This shot clock adoption rule is a step in the right direction, but somewhat curious. The NFHS should not have specified the length and left that aspect up to each individual state. I’m most familiar with states currently using 35 seconds for boys and 30 for girls. But with college recently shifting to 30 for both genders, I expect those states employing a shot clock at the HS level to follow suit. Additionally, it is my understanding that states currently using a shot clock are shut out of the NFHS rules making process since they don’t comply with NFHS rules. Strangely, this will continue to be the case for those states going with a 30-second shot clock in either boys or girls contests. The NFHS missed an opportunity here to be more inclusive and bring those states back into the fold simply by not specifying a number of seconds.

I am under the impression that the NF does not care if you make a rule more restrictive than the current NF Rule. So I am kind of guessing that if they have a 30-second shot clock, they will not be excluded from the NF based on past precedent. That is purely a guess on my part, but for example if you gave a T for a uniform infraction for example that was just making a player unable to play, then the NF did not care about that application and kept the state as a full member. So we will see moving forward.

Peace

Solution in search of a problem.

Yada, Yada, Yada ...
 

I hope that the Points of Emphasis are equally as exciting.

Or, those states will make the minor adjustment to come into compliance since the bigger issue is clock vs. no clock and 5 seconds difference is unlikely to be a major factor.

Personally, I think 35 is plenty short enough for high school. In fact, I would have been in favor of it being higher as most HS teams are just not that good and you'll see desperation shot after desperation shot in some games....or numerous shot clock violations.

It was my understanding that the technical for a uniform infraction was an authorized experiment for one or more states.

I like and prefer the punch for offensive fouls more than the PC signal. That said, I'm willing to bet that the NFHS decision is based on NCAA-M adopting the same signal for all PC & TC fouls. For better or worse, a number of changes from NCAA-M tend to trickle down at some point to the NFHS level.


The rule change allowing head coverings for religious reasons without state-level approval is a good idea in that it removes extra paperwork and the potential gotchas if a team never got that approval and suddenly found the rule strictly enforced -- especially in the post season (which I want to say actually happened somewhere within the past few seasons).


I have no idea if Michigan would consider adopting a shot clock. Until that happens, I'll remain indifferent towards it aside to say I'd prefer it be adopted at the HS level only if it ever was.

My point is I was told that if a state went to a rule that was stricter than the NF, they were fine being a member. If a state relaxed or decided not to enforce a rule, then they were subject to losing voter membership. Not sure if that is totally true but an IHSA Administrator said that in a meeting once so that was the impression I was given. But I am not sure if using a 30 second clock as opposed to a 35 second clock would make much of a difference in this area.

Peace

Connecticut ...
 

Connecticut has already been doing this for the past few years. Allow the player to play that night. Suggest the coach or athletic director contact the state association. Next game: Allow the player to play that night. Suggest the coach or athletic director contact the state association. Next game: Allow the player to play that night. Suggest the coach or athletic director contact the state association. Rinse and repeat all season long, especially through the state tournament.

It's the Wild Wild West here in my little corner of Connecticut where we have more player control foul signals than Carter has Little Liver Pills. Many use some form of the "fist punch" for a player control foul signal. For that reason I was hoping that the NFHS would go to the "fist punch" as the combined player/team control foul signal.

Now, with the signal change, I can't wait to see what signals Connecticut officials use for player control fouls and team control fouls next year.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HBTr-hWvoqI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Finally, the shot clock is approved by state association adoption in NFHS. It de facto legalizes those states that had adopted it without permission, and now gives other states the opportunity to use it in their games. I'll be interested to see how it comes into play in the VHSL, especially because many VA teams play DC and MD teams that use it in their games on their side of the river.

That is a very small portion of the state of Virginia. The hotbeds of Virginia basketball are in the Richmond area, the Hampton Roads area where I live, and out in rural Southwestern Virginia. And there are a lot of underfunded public schools in those three regions in need of infrastructure and facility upgrades.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No Bells And Whistles ...
 

While it still may be too expensive for some schools, two inexpensive (cheap) shot clocks can be purchased in the $600 - $1000 range. No bells and whistles, and the instruction manual may be poorly translated from Mandarin to English, but they will get the job done. Schools can save money on shipping using Amazon Prime.

Support Local Businesses ...
 

Or upgrade with a local sponsor.

I think in many places it will take local sponsors to provide the equipment. Really I do not think the issue will be the one in the main gyms, but we have a lot of schools that have a fieldhouse or another campus they play on (girls on one campus for basketball and boys at another). I think that might be the concern. But if they want to make it happen, it will happen. It just will not be cheap.

Peace

Shot Clock
 

I am a purest, which means I am against a Shot Clock at any level: NFHS, NCAA Men's and Women's, NBA and WNBA, and FIBA.

That said, my 46 years officiating included 34 years officiating games that utilized a Shot Clock: 34 years (women's college: AIAW, NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA), 15 years (men's jr. college: NCAA Div. III junior varsity and NJCAA), 2 years (girls' H.S. in California: CIF), and 10 years (USA Basketball, FIBA Rules) and I never had a problem officiaiting a game in which a Shot Clock was used.

I just do not see the need for a Shot Clock for basketball below the college level. High school coaches cannot recruit (I know, I know, but that is a discussion for another time.); they are, for the most part dependent upon the quaility of the students that reside in their school district and the ability to control the Ball is an factor that can level the playing field. I think that a Shot Clock at the high school level is a solution in search of a problem.

Just my two cents.

MTD, Sr.

Level Playing Field ...
 

Agree. Gives athletically disadvantaged teams who may be coached to play a little more conservative at least a chance to be competitive.

More than one way to skin a cat, more than one way win a basketball game.

Who died and became the king of basketball and decided that the bigger, taller, faster, great defense, great ball handling, great shooting, longer bench team is supposed to win 100% of the time.

Shouldn't good coaching, players wanting to learn to win, and "basketball smarts" play some role in possibly winning a game?

As a former player, a former coach, and a current official, I have never been bored by slow down "chess game" basketball.

The most athletic teams I see in high school are often not waiting to shoot the ball at the time it would take the shot clock to expire. If they are so talented, they take the shots when they can. Nothing requires you to wait until the shot clock is over and many teams even at the college ranks never wait to shoot the ball based on the shot clock. Now that being said I could take it or leave it. I am more concerned about the constant mistakes made with the shot clock. I do not think the game is going to change that much but we have something else to officiate. Otherwise all levels use a shot clock except high school, it is not going to be that big of an adjustment if you ask me for many teams. Of course some will not be able to take good shots, but that was the case anyway.

Peace

High School Isn't College Or The NBA ...
 

Agree. We use a shot clock with Connecticut boys and girls private prep school varsity games and there's almost always some type of a problem, usually human error.

There is a problem at the major college level with the shot clock. Replay usually fixes it and we will not likely have that to correct that situation. But mistakes are common at the small college level. Not all the time but enough it can be annoying at times. We will have to be better officials with the clock for sure. That might be the good thing with this change.

Peace

I've liked the idea of the punch or point for the initial signal on any TC/OC call but I like the behind the head for the reporting area. Of course Ohio went with behind the head when the punch was introduced so there's no real change for us.

I just noticed something. I thought they said they were getting rid of the "behind the head" signal (I did not go look at the specific number, my bad). So the NF is basically doing the same thing that the NCAA Men's side is doing with the signal. Behind the head but I guess no punch or at least not the punch alone. I was so concerned with the shot clock stuff, I did not pay attention to what they were referencing clearly. So I guess NF and NCAA are going to basically match in this area.

Peace

Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad (Meat Loaf, 1977) ...
 

To each his own (or her own).

Preserve Integrity
 

Given the recent emphasis on "aligning" the NF with the (men's) NCAA, a few issues are noteworthy:

1) Three things that should never be emulated between the NF and NCAA level rules/mechanics:
A) the 5-second closely guarded count should be maintained for NF games
B) the NF goal-tending rule should not be changed to the (men's) NCAA rule.
C) the 3 point arc should not be extended.

Just curious. What is different between HS/NCAA GT? Is it that NCAA adopted the NBA bar on touching after it hits the glass, or something else?

(I think you're probably right about the 3pt line, as it runs across so many levels of play. For the elite HS game, I think it would be better moved back, but that is such a small percentage of games.)

Comments On The Rules ...
 

2021-22 NFHS Basketball Comments On The Rules
State Option Added to Permit Shot Clock Use (2-14 New)
While several states have utilized a variety of options to permit the use of a shot clock in high school basketball, this allowance has not previously been permitted within the NFHS playing rules. Effective with 2022-23 program year, state associations may utilize a 35-second shot clock and in compliance with 2-14, be considered to be adhering to the playing rules. In adopting the option to utilize the shot clock, the committee remains cognizant of the many advocates and opponents of its use and has encouraged standardization among those who choose to adopt. In this way, future committees can gather and analyze consistent data as they evaluate any future considerations for change. The committee felt it appropriate to stop short of a nationwide rule change and instead allow for the continued analysis of both game and violation statistics as well as continuing to measure preferences in all states through surveys and questionnaire data. These decisions will need to be addressed within each of the states as they determine whether or not to pursue this path, and are, for now, best guided by each state’s analysis of the wants, needs and desires of its membership. The committee is therefore issuing guidance supplemental to the rules that list several areas for consideration by each state. These include the acquisition of the shot clock units, considerations for operators, protocols for officials including mechanics and duties, and the many other rules considerations that will need to be reviewed regarding full and partial resets, procedures for equipment failure and responsibilities for officials. This information will be placed supplemental to the actual playing rules to assist decision makers in this review.

Religious Head Coverings Rules Codified (3-5-4f New and 3-5-4, Exception B)
The playing rules were modified to add a provision that allows for religious head coverings to be permitted without state association approval as long as they are not made of abrasive or hard materials and provided, they securely fit. This change also removes the previous exception that required state association approval prior to this type of head covering being worn.

Officials Signal Change Made Eliminating Signal 37
The committee reviewed various changes that had been both made and requested at a variety of levels of basketball and determined that all player and team control fouls should utilize signal 36 (the hand behind the head) rather than the previous mechanics that utilized Signal 37 (the extended fist) for a team control foul. The proper sequence for either of these calls will now be signal 4 to indicate a foul, the use of the same arm to give signal 36 to indicate a player or team control foul, followed by signal 6 indicating the direction in which the ball will be put in play and then signal 7 to indicate the throw-in spot.

Points Of Emphasis ...
 

NFHS 2021-22 Basketball Points Of Emphasis
Officiating Mechanics And Signals
The NFHS Rules Committee expects officials to adhere to the approved mechanics and signals. By using only approved mechanics and signals it adds to the professional image of the officials and shows greater respect for the game. Officials at the High School level are part of an education-based activity and the use of proper mechanics and the avoidance of “personal style” is essential. The reason for having signals is to communicate to players, coaches, table personnel, fans, and other officials on the floor. The use of approved signals leads to more clear communication between all those involved. To that end, for each ruling the proper sequence of signals is:

Stop the clock using the proper signal for a violation or foul.
Signal held ball or the type of foul or violation.
Verbally state the jersey color of the team entitled to the ball for the ensuing throw-in and point in the direction of that team’s basket.
Indicate the throw-in location.
Note: Due to the change in the approved signal used for player/team control foul, the “punch signal” has been eliminated.

Time-Out Administration
During a “dead” ball, either team may be granted a time out. During a live ball, only the team in control of the ball may be granted a timeout. It is important officials verify there is player control prior to granting the request.

Head Coach requesting: Coaches must understand that just because they have requested a timeout does not guarantee it will be granted. Remember, only the head coach or a player of the team in control of the ball may legally request a timeout. Officials must be sure the head coach is making the request. This request may be oral or visual.

Player control. The committee is still concerned that officials are granting timeouts while the ball is loose and not in player control. Over the years, an officiating philosophy has developed that teaches officials to grant loose ball timeouts quickly to avoid rough play and stop additional players from diving onto the loose ball pile. While preventing rough play is desirable, that concept cannot supersede the basic rule that a player must be in control of the ball for a timeout to be legally granted. When in doubt, do not grant the timeout. Additionally, do not hesitate to charge fouls for players “jumping on” another player. “Going for the ball” does not justify this rough play.

Granting Timeout Requests: Ideally, granting the timeout should be the primary coverage official. However, other official(s) may become aware that a timeout is being requested. In all cases, officials must be certain there is player control prior to granting the timeout request. Officials should also be aware of situations where timeouts are more likely to be requested e.g. end of the period/ game or a team has made several baskets in a row.

Unsporting Conduct
The committee is concerned about inappropriate conduct by players, bench personnel, coaches, officials, and spectators. Each group needs to view the activity in light of it being educationally based and not accept conduct that would not be tolerated in other educational settings. Therefore, each group has the responsibility to demonstrate civility and citizenship. To this effect: Game management needs to pay particular attention to spectators. Game Management should intervene when spectator behavior becomes unacceptable. This should be done prior to an official having to make such a request. When game management fails to address spectator behavior on their own, officials should remind game management to hold spectators accountable for their actions. A game ticket is not a license to abuse. Officials should not tolerate inappropriate conduct from coaches and/or players. The rules allow for a “warning” to be given to coaches and it should be utilized when appropriate. The team huddle is not a safe haven for coaches’ bad language. Just as a classroom teacher should not verbally abuse students, neither should coaches use bad language when addressing their players. Players are not permitted to “let off steam” by using profanity, even if it is not directed at an opponent or official. Being angry at oneself is no excuse. Officials are not exempt from unsporting conduct. Inappropriate references to players, coaches or other officials is not acceptable. Inappropriate behavior before, during or after the game should be reported to the official’s association /assignor.

Screening
Screening is a legal action to delay a player while touching the floor, without causing contact to prevent an opponent from reaching a desired position.
Legal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent:
Is stationary (within the vertical plane) when contact occurs.
Has both feet on the floor when contact occurs.
Time and distance are relevant.
The screener shall be stationary, except when both the screener and opponent are moving in the same path and the same direction.

Illegal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent:
Is moving when contact occurred.
Does not give sufficient distance in setting a screen outside the field of vision of a stationary opponent when contact occurred.
Does not respect the elements of time and distance of an opponent in motion when contact occurred.
A player may not use arms, hands, hips, or shoulders to force movement through a screen or hold the screener and then push the screener aside in order to maintain legal guarding position.
If the screen is set within the field of vision of a stationary opponent (front or lateral), the screener may establish the screen as close to the opponent as desired, provided there is no contact.

If the screen is set outside the field of vision of a stationary opponent, the screener must permit the opponent to take 1 normal step towards the screen without making contact. If the opponent is in motion, the elements of time and distance shall apply. The screener must leave enough space so that the player who is being screened is able to avoid the screen by stopping or changing direction. The distance required is never less than 1 and never more than 2 normal steps. A player who is legally screened is responsible for any contact with the player who has set the screen.

Euro-Steps, Spin Moves, And Jump Stops – Legal Or Illegal?
If executed within the parameters of the 4.44 traveling rule, each of these plays is legal. If not executed within the rules, each of these plays is illegal. High school players often attempt to emulate players they watch at higher levels but because collegiate and professional rules, interpretations, and directives vary, what is legal at one level may not be legal at another.

What is referred to as a Euro Step most often occurs when a player who is dribbling toward the basket stops dribbling, catches the ball while both feet are off the floor, lands on one foot and steps laterally with the other foot, often to step around a defender, all while facing the basket. The first foot to land on the floor is the pivot foot and if the player releases the ball on a try for goal or pass before the pivot foot touches the floor again, it is legal. If the player’s pivot foot touches the floor a second time before the player releases the ball, it is illegal.

What is often referred to as a Spin Move most often occurs when a player who dribbles toward the basket, catches the ball while faking to one side of the basket, plants a foot (becomes the pivot foot), while facing the basket, turns his or her back to the basket in an attempt to “spin” around a defender, then steps with the other foot. This would be legal but most often when the player’s back is to the basket during the spin, to again face the basket and get into position to release the ball on a try, the player must step again. This means the player’s pivot foot returns to the floor a second time, thus causing a traveling violation. Example: A1 is dribbling toward the basket from the left side. Defender B1 is facing A1 when A1 catches the ball and steps with the left foot while faking to the left, then spins (back to the basket), steps with the right foot while spinning and then steps with the left foot again. When beginning the spin move, A1’s left foot became the pivot foot and after the spin, when the left foot again touches the floor, A1 has violated. This type of play could originate from in front of the basket or from either side. Due to the speed of the player attempting a spin move and the physical difficulty of facing the basket when one foot touches the floor, then attempting to spin around a defender and release the ball before the pivot foot again touches the floor, the vast majority of spin move attempts are illegal.

What is often referred to as a Jump Stop is, by rule, an exception to the traveling rules. A legal jump stop occurs when a player who catches the ball with both feet off the floor, lands on one foot, jumps off that foot and lands with both feet touching the floor simultaneously. Many players are taught well and successfully execute legal jump stops. There are two situations that most often cause attempts at legal jump stops to become illegal. The first: After the player jumps off one foot, the player lands on one foot followed by the other (illegal “stutter step”), instead of landing simultaneously on both feet (legal). The second: After the player completes a legal jump stop, the player pivots. A legal jump stop is already an exception to the travel rule and a player who pivots with either foot after a jump stop is completed gains a huge advantage and has committed a traveling violation. Landing on both feet, under NFHS rules the player violates when his or her pivot foot touches the floor the second time.

Points Of Emphasis Part II ...
 

Traveling - Basic Fundamentals
When beginning a dribble, a player must release the ball before lifting his or her pivot foot. A player who lifts the pivot foot before releasing the ball to begin a dribble has committed a traveling violation. It is always legal for a player to lift the pivot foot but the player must pass, shoot, or be granted a time-out before the pivot foot touches the floor again. It is not possible for a player to travel while dribbling the ball, bouncing the ball while out-of-bounds during a throw-in or prior to attempting free throw(s).

For officials, identifying a player’s pivot foot is, by far, the most important aspect of accurately ruling potential traveling violations. Videos, traveling presentations, and practice are effective tools available to officials who want to improve their accuracy of ruling potential traveling plays.

Traveling rules are relatively easy to learn and understand but because of the sheer number of potential traveling violations that occur in every game and the speed at which many of these plays occur, making a high percentage of accurate rulings is difficult. In some instances, officials appear to rule on these plays based on what it “looks like,” rather than what rules allow. To improve the teaching, execution, and accurate rulings of potential traveling situations, players, coaches, and officials should review relevant rule descriptions and take advantage of available information ... and practice!

Wake Me Up Before You Go Go (Wham!, 1984) ...
 

A) With the adoption of a shot clock this becomes less important. Easier to referee having less to do
B) Indifferent, may remove ambiguity around the rule for players and fans as they are more familiar with the NCAA rule.
C) Agreed

I will say I think the Men's rule is harder to officiate. But I am not going to get upset if that were to change. It would only really become an issue at the boys side for the most part and does not become a real issue at the boys side either at the high school level with many schools.

Peace

[QUOTE=so cal lurker;1043358]Just curious. What is different between HS/NCAA GT? Is it that NCAA adopted the NBA bar on touching after it hits the glass, or something else?

SoCalLurker: AFAIU, the goal-tending rules vary: For NF, the thrown ball can touch the backboard and as long as the ball is still going upwards, then it's OK to Block that shot. For NCAA, once a shot hits the backboard [even while still going up] it is illegal to Block that shot.

You may ask, why does Kansas Ref make these suggestions? Here are my justifications:

1) For "5 seconds closely guarded count": What is the purpose of pre-professional[i.e., high-school] basketball? It is to learn the rules of the game, improve your overall playing ability, and possibly derive pleasure from a lifelong sport that you can participate in and be an informed spectator of. Ergo, one skill to develop is defensive footwork and body placement; the 5 second closely guarded count rewards the development and implementation of that key skill. Yes, I understand that hypothetically using a 'shot clock' could obfuscate the 5 second count; however, the skills of defensive footwork and body placement that a young player learns thru vigorous application of ''closely guarded'' does afford them skills that are transferable to other areas of basketball, such as perimeter guarding, post defense, and even being properly positioned to take a "charge".

2) Shot blocking in NF vs. NCAA: For NF, the thrown ball can touch the backboard and as long as the ball is still going upwards, then it's OK to Block that shot. For NCAA, once a shot hits the backboard [even while still going up] it is illegal to Block that shot. So why maintain a distinction between the two levels? Again, I ask, what is the purpose of pre-professional basketball? To teach and learn skills of play. Jumping, anticipating the shot, and being reactive on defense are skills that are important to be learned--moreover, the chance to block a shot legally should not be infringed upon.

3) 3 point arc; no change is necessary due to 1) the distance is fine and within the capability for the vast majority of pre-professional players; and 2) the cost to the schools to remove and replace lines is yet another cost that is not necessary.

agree....is is much more difficult to tell, particularly when you have a body of officials that is at least somewhat less likely in a lot of cases to be in a good position.

1. I would modify the closely guarded count to only operate on a held ball. With the shot clock, if a player is wasting time by dribbling in place, that's on him, not necessarily because the defender is doing a good job of containing him. However, if a player is closely guarding an opponent holding the ball, and denying him the opportunity to pass or shoot for 5 seconds, that should be rewarded. This is probably the rationale that NCAA men's, NCAA women's, and FIBA rules use to limit closely guarding rules to players holding the ball.

2. I have no issue with making that change (making blocking a ball off the backboard goaltending). Chances are that a ball off the backboard meets the criteria for goaltending anyway (above the height of the basket, on its downward flight, and with a chance to score), so there would be no confusion if that officially became the NFHS rule as well.

3. I would have to agree with not changing the 3-point line distance. Most high schoolers won't be able to shoot from the college men's line with any consistency, especially not girls. There is a reason that there is a difference between the NCAA men's and women's 3-point lines, and the WNBA and NBA 3-point lines.

Newton's Laws ...
 

Not immediately after the ball touches the backboard. Think back to your high school geometry, trigonometry, and physics classes. Now think of a typical high school layup. Ball is often released from under the ring (especially in girls high school games and most middle school games) and is moving upward after the release, it then hits the backboard, bounces (reflects) off the backboard at same angle of the incident angle, still with some upward momentum, and then continues to move upward until the force of gravity takes over and pulls it back down into the basket.

Law of Reflection happens on a pool table all the time.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.E...=0&w=209&h=163

For rules purposes, it is considered on its downward flight. It is not meant actually be seen that way. And the rule also states that if any part of the ball is above the ring, which is the case if the ball touches the backboard in almost every case. So it is just a different rule and the ball hitting the backboard is considered off-limits and has a chance to go in as well.

Peace

High School Goaltending/Backboard ...
 

I kind of understand the NCAA goaltending/backboard rule (thanks anyway for the NCAA explanation), but I was 100% talking about the NFHS (high school) rule with ilyazhito.

In it's full context, ilyazhito was advocating automatically making blocking a ball off the backboard goaltending in high school (as in college), implying that balls in this situation were probably mostly on their downward flight anyway, and I replied with a scientific/mathematical rebuttal to a part of his post.

Again, it depends on the angle of the shots. If a jump shot or set shot (many free throw attempts are set shots) hits the backboard, it will go down. Some layup attempts will go down as well, especially from boys who are able to jump and release the ball above the rim level. In these cases, the ball will be on its downward flight from the backboard. Changing the rule to make all balls of the backboard be considered as on their downward flight would simplify goaltending enforcement.

Gravity ...
 

Because by the trajectory, it's already on it's way down.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.g...=0&w=251&h=185

Interscholastic Teams ...
 

Let's be serious and keep in mind who plays games under NFHS rules? Interscholastic teams, including girls high school teams, and middle school teams of both genders. Thousands of games. Tens of thousand of players. What percentage of layup attempts in these games are immediately on the way down after the release and then immediately "reflecting" downward off the backboard?

Are youall just trying to appease the fans when they wonder/shout why a goaltending is not made in a HS game? Is that why you all are advocates of switching to the NCAA stance on goaltending? When will the compromising stop? Lol

Oh and a final

Fans do not come into the play for me about this rule. What I would like is some level of standardization, but I think the NCAA rule is harder at that level because there is much more above-the-rim play. At least it is a line of demarcation as opposed to some other stance on what be a total judgment call. That is why I said I am not necessarily a fan of that rule change to the NCAA level. I was not a fan of the rule change at the NCAA level either when it happened, but we are here. Not changing back.

Peace

I'm trying to provide for a consistent guideline for goaltending enforcement. Having balls of the backboard being considered on their downward flight, or changing the rule to read "a try in flight, with a chance of scoring, on its downdward flight or off the backboard" would allow for more consistent enforcement of the goaltending rules.

Walk And Chew Gum At The Same Time ...
 

... only for those who officiate both NCAA basketball and NFHS basketball, and possibly do a poor job at one, or both.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet (Rudyard Kipling, The Ballad of East and West, 1889).

While it may be nice if all basketball rule sets (boys, girls, men, women, middle school, high school, college, international, professional) were the same, right now they're not (probably never will be) and if one wants to officiate multiple basketball levels, it behooves one to become proficient at multiple rule sets, and to not expect any help or short cuts from rule making organizations.

For many of us who stick to officiating only one level (or only one level in a season), it's a big fat non-issue.

The position that certain rules share the same rule really has nothing to do with you working only one level. It just makes the situation consistent so that everyone understands what is to be ruled. When we have a different rule at multiple levels and vastly different applications, it causes confusion. So it is not about what level you only do, because chances are many people including the officials watch and consume other levels as well.

Peace

Confused Observers ...
 

Agree. But the only confused observers that really count are officials, nobody else matters, not fans, not game announcers.

As a one level NFHS official, I watch NBA and NCAA all the time on television and I never get confused (but sometimes have questions), but I will admit that a few "one level officials" might get confused, especially rookies, and those that don't take rule study seriously.

In my opinion, it is the multi-level official who is most likely to matter if they confuse rules that adversely impact game decisions. The overwhelmingly majority do a great job, only a minor few don't, but all multi-level officials shouldn't expect rule making organizations to make their jobs easier with the same rules, sure, it's nice when it happens, it's probably better for the game, but it shouldn't be expected. All you multi-level guys know this going in before you make the jump between levels, that this will be a part of the multi-level jump challenge.

In my opinion, there probably fewer single-level officials out there seriously thinking, "I seriously wish that all basketball rules were the same", than multi-level officials seriously thinking, "I seriously wish that all basketball rules were the same".

Note: As a conciliatory gesture to JRutledge, I changed "those" to "many".

I agree. Coaches, especially those who come from a college playing background, may often be confused about specific rules differences between that level and the high school level, and as such may teach the players things that are inappropriate for the high school level, because of the rules differences. I have had to explain to high school coaches why pass interference is not an automatic first down while working football games, even though the rule has been different for over 5 years already!

In basketball, there are fewer differences, but some of them are very relevant for gameplay (for example, the goaltending rule, especially for boys' games, the backcourt violation rule (the offense cannot be last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, and first to touch the ball in the backcourt, even on a ball deflected by the defense, per high school rules), and the differences in the closely-guarded rule). If the differences can be reduced, then it becomes easier for all stakeholders to understand and apply the rules of basketball.

Differences Reduced For Stakeholders ...
 

Well put ilyazhito. While I actually agree with your statement, it will never happen.

And considering all stakeholders, officials should be the least likely to expect help from rules making organizations in reducing confusing differences. After all, officials are supposed to be what'cha call rules experts.

Helping the game? Sure. Helping all stakeholders? Sure. Helping confused multi-level officials? Low on my list, officials get paid the big bucks not to be confused.

I've never had a conversation with an official who works some of combination of WNBA/G-League/NCAA-M/NCAA-W/High School who wanted the rules to be streamlined.

I have worked with officials who don't take the time to learn the rules of a particular level, but I've run into that with single-level officials just as much, if not more, as multi-level officials.

Actually, the reason many people want rules to be the same is that they like or understand the rule from a particular level. Or they see something over and over again in the place they watch the most. How many people watch a lot of high school basketball without a kid playing at that level? It has little to do with a multi-level official. Coaches, players, and fans all ask for rules similarities all the time, not simply officials. Most officials already understand that the rules will be different if they work at different levels.

Peace

To A Deluxe Apartment In The Sky ...
 

Maybe part of the reason why they can't/won't/don't move up.

Took a whole lotta tryin'
Just to get up that hill.
Now we're up in the big leagues
Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me baby
There ain't nothin wrong with that.

Part Of The Challenge ...
 

Agree.