2024 NFHS Basketball Rules Questionnaire ...

[bob jenkins]

MLB *traditionally* had the home team wear white, because it was hard for the V team to get the laundry done and the darker uniforms would not show as much dirt. That tradition has largely gone away.

Nos specific rule exists in FED, NCAA or MLB baseball.

Or, any volleyball rule with which I am familiar.

Or, it would seem, tennis or track or golf....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

MLB *traditionally* had the home team wear white, because it was hard for the V team to get the laundry done and the darker uniforms would not show as much dirt. That tradition has largely gone away.

Nos specific rule exists in FED, NCAA or MLB baseball.

Or, any volleyball rule with which I am familiar.

Or, it would seem, tennis or track or golf....

And all those sports do not have constant contact like basketball or football which those sports have. I wonder if lacross and hockey have color rules. I am pretty sure soccer does as well.

Peace

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And all those sports do not have constant contact like basketball or football which those sports have. I wonder if lacross and hockey have color rules. I am pretty sure soccer does as well.

Peace

NFHS Hockey: the rule specifies "white-/light-colored" jerseys for the home team.

2.1.2 SITUATION B: The home team's jerseys are light blue and the visiting team's jerseys are dark blue. RULING: As long as the officials can readily differentiate players of opposing teams, this is permissible. The home team should preferably wear white jerseys, but light non-white colors are permitted.


NFHS Soccer: solid white jerseys for the visiting and dark jerseys (dark is defined as any color which contrasts with white) for the home team.


NFHS Lacrosse: Jerseys shall be of contrasting colors for opposing teams. The home team shall wear light jerseys and the visiting team shall wear its dark-color jerseys. The visiting team is responsible for avoidance of similarity of colors, but, if there is doubt, the referee may require the home team to change jerseys.

[Stat-Man]

A lot of these proposed rule changes seem like they are changes for the sake of change and to justify having an annual meeting.


I'm definitely not in favor of additional changes to the team foul rule. I like it as is.



About the only changes I favor are:

• All frontcourt throw-ins go to one of the four magic spots.
• Using the three-point arc instead of the "rocket ship" to determine endline vs. sideline throw-ins.
• Adding a flop warning (if that's what the proposed penalty would be).

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

A lot of these proposed rule changes seem like they are changes for the sake of change and to justify having an annual meeting.


I'm definitely not in favor of additional changes to the team foul rule. I like it as is.



About the only changes I favor are:

• All frontcourt throw-ins go to one of the four magic spots.
• Using the three-point arc instead of the "rocket ship" to determine endline vs. sideline throw-ins.
• Adding a flop warning (if that's what the proposed penalty would be).

For the last few years when I've filled out the questionnaire I've asked if not begged for a flop warning.

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by bas2456

For the last few years when I've filled out the questionnaire I've asked if not begged for a flop warning.

I'm first curious how a "flop violation", or even a "formal flop warning" would be handled. Is it only a violation for offense players? If A1 is driving and B1 flops, do we stop play to call the violation and give the ball right back to... team A?

I'm also curious how much of a difference a "flop violation" would make. The number of times I've heard "I am NEVER going to call a flopping technical, it's way too risky" or "I've only ever seen it once... ONCE..." is a fairly substantial number and usually cited is the question of how obvious it was. In HS games, many times flopping comes with a disadvantage to a team anyway - one of their players is distracted trying to perform a bad acting job while game action continues around him/her. Most of the time, an obvious flop is already handled as a non-call. In a lot of cases, just ignoring the obvious flops is likely to have the most impact.

I guess it gives you another level of escalation if you need it between informal "hey, 23, don't stretch it" and the tech, but would it change any behavior? Have any cases where you'd use a flop violation or a "formal" flop warning that goes beyond an informal "knock it off"?

Would you use it for crowd control? I can't imagine it's any better to accuse a team of flopping as a way of keeping the crowd from having wild reactions to poor acting jobs?

What would make you more willing to administer flopping punishments? Video review proving it was a flop?

Is there any particular situation you would have used a violation or formal warning for flopping vs. today's options?

[bob jenkins]

Works well in NCAAW. Applies to offense or defense. Give the signal when it happens, but don't stop play the first time. Report the warning at the next stoppage. On the second time, stop play and issue the T unless A has an immediate chance to score (or some similar words).

[ilyazhito]

I agree. This should also be the case in HS. At the same time, NCAAM initially had a warning for flopping, but that went away before the 2022-23 season. I'm willing to bet that the reason why NCAAM got rid of the warning is because they have 2 classes of technical fouls, not one, and thus felt that giving the player a lesser technical foul (Class B) with a lesser penalty (Class B technical fouls have one free throw) and resuming play from the point of interruption was enough of a deterrent.

NFHS does not have Class A/Class B for players, so making flopping a team technical foul might make officials more willing to call it. The alternative would be to introduce a Class B technical foul to NFHS, and reclassify lesser infractions, such as hanging on the ring, faking being fouled, and boundary infractions, as Class B technical fouls. That way, a player who receives a technical foul for faking and for unsportsmanlike conduct will not be immediately ejected, because the 2 technical fouls are not of the same severity.

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Works well in NCAAW. Applies to offense or defense. Give the signal when it happens, but don't stop play the first time. Report the warning at the next stoppage. On the second time, stop play and issue the T unless A has an immediate chance to score (or some similar words).

Thanks Bob. Curiously, the questionnaire refers to a "violation for faking being fouled (flopping)" which sent my mind questioning how they'd establish a violation (vs. the warning).

I guess I can see the value of a delayed warning as an option, how much would it be used beyond more informal "knock it off" verbals?

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Works well in NCAAW. Applies to offense or defense. Give the signal when it happens, but don't stop play the first time. Report the warning at the next stoppage. On the second time, stop play and issue the T unless A has an immediate chance to score (or some similar words).

Is the eventual T charged to the player or just the team?

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

I'm first curious how a "flop violation", or even a "formal flop warning" would be handled. Is it only a violation for offense players? If A1 is driving and B1 flops, do we stop play to call the violation and give the ball right back to... team A?


--- 8< --- Snip --- >8 ---



Is there any particular situation you would have used a violation or formal warning for flopping vs. today's options?

If it is handled as it is in international play, the warning is signaled immediately and then reported at the next stoppage with play resuming at the POI. Subsequent flops are penalized with an immediate player technical foul.

As other posters have stated, flopping isn't limited to the defense. Offensive players try to act as if they have been fouled. Also, shooters will also try to embellish contact that may or may not have happened - especially as or after they land.

I had a play this year where defensive player flailed about after running into a legally-set screen. Not enough to call a T for faking being fouled, but it would have been enough to merit an official warning if it existed in the rules.

Here is a 5 minute 10 second clip of various plays in FIBA competition that were ruled a flop following a prior warning.

[ChuckS]

I got halfway through the video...not sure why they felt the need to embellish. There was contact in each one - but I don't know how likely FIBA officials are to call PC fouls on those.

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

As other posters have stated, flopping isn't limited to the defense. Offensive players try to act as if they have been fouled. Also, shooters will also try to embellish contact that may or may not have happened - especially as or after they land.

Thanks.

I can understand it being an official warning that just establishes the next time as a technical foul... I think we can already do that with informal "knock-it-off"s, but I suppose giving it more weight makes it less argumentative when you do pull the T out.

I was responding mainly to the specific wording used that would establish faking being fouled as a "violation" vs. a warning. I can see that for offensive flopping - stop play, it's a turnover and the defense gets the ball. It would also work on a shot - offense gets the ball on a made or missed basket without needing to rebound? But when the defense flops on the floor without a try, how would a violation be enforced? Give the ball to the team that already had it in the first place?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Wow! In my high school games I've either got a player/team control foul, or a defensive foul, or a loose ball foul, or nothing, on almost all of these plays.

If flopping because a rule change, or a point of emphasis, I've got to really change my definition of a flop.