NFHS Annual Questions

[JoeT]

You know what has actually been troubling me (more as a coach than an official)? Given the current trend, it seems like the NF feels as though we HAVE to have a few rule changes every year. I'm not talking about clarifications or officials' mechanics, but actual rule changes. As a coach, I will freely admit that many coaches do not have adequate rules knowledge, but I am increasingly disturbed by the number of officials who do not have excellent rules knowledge. I have always admired my official friends who take such pride in really being rules experts - that's why I enjoy the discussions on the board so much.

But changing rules every year only serves to exacerbate these difficulties for all involved - coaches, refs, and players. In some ways I think the constant changes also discredit the work of very good officials. For good officials, points of emphasis should be enough. If officials commit to these points, they shouldn't need to be enforced by constantly-changing rules. The lane spot tampering is a good example. Find a way that works and leave it alone.

I know some will say (correctly) that many officials will not commit to the POE's, and so the emphases must be enhanced with rules changes, but this is troubling as well. If the NF or a state or local officials' association wants things called a certain way, officials should consider acquiescing for the greater good.

The other consideration (as a coach) has to do with teaching (although I know of your collective antipathy toward many coaches' ability to do so). The idea of eliminating the 5-second count is a good example here. This rule is a great tool for a coach who is trying to teach the value of good defensive footwork. Altering it will not only make it harder for us to teach this skill, but also invalidate some of the teaching we've already done.

So my question for the board and the NF is this: Do we (or can we) ever consider freezing the rules (ie no substantive changes - only clarifications) for one or more years? Would this even be possible? I'm not suggesting that we never improve rules that simply aren't working, but I would like to see these changes approached more judiciously and slowly than is the current trend.

I'm interested in the thoughts of the members of this forum.

Joe

[JCurrie]

Unfortunately, it seems the NF people feel the need to justify their existence every year with rule changes. If you look at baseball, the Official Baseball Rules (used by MLB and most youth orgs) haven't been changed at all in at least 7 or 8 years. NFHS rules on the other hand usually have a full page of the rulebook devoted to such important changes as uniform design or coaches' jackets. A lot of people complain that we should just use extant rules codes for HS sports, so the HS people need to do things to stand out.

[ChuckElias]

Ok, a few comments.

As Rich mentioned, we use halves up here in MA. Additionally, we do not use 30-second TO's. To make up for not using the 30's, we give each team an additional full TO. And to make up for not using the mandatory TO at the 8:00 mark of each half, we give each team an additional full TO. So each team ends up with 5 60-second TO's per game.

That's a lot, but as missinglink pointed out, they rarely all get used. "Rarely" may be strong; but we usually do not grant 10 TO's in a game.

Having said all that, I really like halves. I think it keeps the game flowing. It eliminates two last-second situations per game (although we also use the shot-clock in MA, so that adds last-second situations). And since the coaches get an extra TO, if they feel they need that extra "teaching moment" in the middle of the half, they can take it. It actually gives the coach more flexibility, b/c they can take the extra TO anytime, not just at the 8:00 mark. They can "bank" it for late in the game. I don't see any down-side to halves at all.

I don't care at all about the rules about positioning on the lane; except that I would not like to see the NCAAW rule adopted. Go to the NBA rule before the NCAAW, in my opinion. Why? I just don't like it. I would also like it if they went back to entering the lane on the release.

I am adamantly opposed to removing the closely-guarded rule. As I've said before, the closely-guarded rule is not intended to reward the defense. It is intended to require the offense to play a team game. If you allow one person to dribble the ball for 45 seconds until they "break down" their defender(s), you remove the element of team play. You get NBA-wannabes trying every shake-n-bake move and forgetting about passing. And this is true regardless of whether or not a shot-clock is used. Give the kid 5 seconds to make his move to the basket or give it up. Even the NBA has come to realize that in some situations, a 5-second closely-guarded count is necessary. It's the "back-to-the-basket" rule. My vote is (staunchly) in favor of keeping the closely guarded rule exactly the way it is.

I like the shot clock for most varsity games. It's pretty silly to use it at the Freshman level, IMO. Varsity teams should be able to run a play and get a shot off in 30 or 35 seconds. But at lower levels (even JV, in some areas) the skill may not be there to run a play successfully the first or even second time through. They should have all the time they need to practice their offense, since that's essentially what Freshman and JV programs are.

The drawback is, of course, that many many many shot clock operators have no idea how to run the shot clock correctly. I've posted my pre-game instructions for the shot-clock operator before, but without the search function, I have no idea where the thread is.

Ok, now onto the soapbox. FED should adopt the NCAA "point of interruption" procedure for technical fouls. FED should adopt some form of the NCAA "team control" foul. FED should adopt the NBA's rule that only players on the floor may request a TO.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, now onto the soapbox. FED should adopt the NCAA "point of interruption" procedure for technical fouls. FED should adopt some form of the NCAA "team control" foul. FED should adopt the NBA's rule that only players on the floor may request a TO.

I only agree with the TO, Chuck, but I would like to see POI on a double foul.

The T penalty should be harsh. Sportsmanship should be stressed at the HS level and loss of possession emphasizes this.
Team control doesn't do it for me even in the NCAA. I don't like the fact that if two guys are pushing for position away from the ball and a foul is called on one of them, whether we shoot free throws depends on whose team had the ball. I think it is unfair to the defense. They seem to be penalized more severely for the same act. I also know what will quickly follow: team control during a throw-in. I don't want the NFHS to change this, it would be a nightmare to see some HS officials trying to explain to a coach why a certain play is not a backcourt violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

The T penalty should be harsh. Sportsmanship should be stressed at the HS level and loss of possession emphasizes this.


[/B]

Agree. The FED has made "sportsmanship" a POE for the last umpteen years. They are obviously very concerned about it, and rightfully so, imo. The penalty is supposed to discourage unsporting acts, and reducing the penalty would probably be counter-productive to that aim.

[Forksref]

We have shot clocks, 30 for girls and 35 for boys, in North Dakota HS large schools. Seems to work fine. Usually it is the same person who does the girls as the boys shot clock and they are good at it. It is not rocket science. Just get the same person trained to do it.

As for FT, I think there are fewer rebounding fouls but it reduces the chances of the offense getting a FT rebound. I think that is part of the game. Good officials never had problems with FT rebounds.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The T penalty should be harsh. Sportsmanship should be stressed at the HS level and loss of possession emphasizes this.
Team control doesn't do it for me even in the NCAA. I don't like the fact that if two guys are pushing for position away from the ball and a foul is called on one of them, whether we shoot free throws depends on whose team had the ball.

Nevada, these two sentiments don't go together. You don't like team control b/c the penalty for the foul differs based on who has the ball. But you like the T foul rule, even tho the penalty differs based on who has the ball.

We always say that the T is just another foul, just another tool. So let's have the penalty reflect that. JMO.

[TigerBball]

What good does a shot clock do?

I don't see any reason for it in High School, or college for that matter.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by TigerBball
What good does a shot clock do?

I don't see any reason for it in High School, or college for that matter.

For one it keeps an over matched team from making it a 10-
8 ball game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by blindzebra

For one it keeps an over matched team from making it a 10-
8 ball game.

That's only important for the TV networks.

If a team uses the rules and their particular skills to their advantage, then good for them. Shame on the "better" team for playing along and not forcing the action.

[footlocker]

Why change from quarters to halves? I don't see any distinct advantage. This business about eliminating two last second shots, who cares. They play 'em and we officiate 'em. If we are going to make a change it shouldn't be just for the sake of change or a preference; it should be because it is necessary for the good of the game. This is a "grass is greener" issue. If the NF made that change we would be here next year with just as many people suggesting that we change right back to quarters. Then there are suggestions to change the time out rule to reflect the need for more teaching opportunities. Absurd. The game is good. Look at the rules and ask yourself, "what absolutely needs to be changed for the good of the game?" That is it. Otherwise, changing rules like some people change underwear seems a little tired to me.

[Rich]

I think halves work better -- most rec programs play halves (at least where I've lived) and the colleges play halves. Only the schools and NBA play quarters.

Instead of an artifically placed timeout, let the teams have more and use them when they want.

I don't see the big deal either, but I'd rather let the teams decide when we're going to have a 1-minute break.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

But you like the T foul rule, even tho the penalty differs based on who has the ball.

Chuck,
I guess we view this situation differently. I don't understand how the penalty differs for a T. The way I see it, it is two shots and the ball for the OTHER team. It doesn't matter who had what before the T.

With a team control foul, I feel like I have to check my calendar to find out if it is the third Tuesday of the month, before I can decide whether we're shooting. Personally, I think we should shoot the bonus, if applicable, on ALL fouls, player control included.


But on another note I was puzzled by this:

Originally posted by footlocker

like some people change underwear

Uh, yeah, most of us do this regularly. You don't approve?