04-05 rules cjages up nfhs

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker
It's definitely the most trivial batch of changes in the five years I've been reffing.

But I don't understand this one:

"4-11-1 Clarifies that continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, when there is a foul by any defensive player, not just a defensive foul on the shooter."

Does this mean that the shot is good, if it goes, as long as the foul was during the "continuous motion"? Wasn't that always the rule? Even for a defensive foul away from the ball?

You are correct, Juulie. It's always been that way. Nothing in the "Editorial Changes" is supposed to be a rule change....just a rewording to clarify misunderstandings of the original rule.

However, last year's committee used it to actually change a rule by imparting their interpretation of a foot on the line regarding LGP.


As you said, this is the most minimal set of changes for as long as I've been doing this. It seems they could reduce the frequency of changes to be bi-yearly and just increase the cost of the books to offset the income difference.

[lrpalmer3]

I'd love to go table side after a call. There are many times that you can diffuse the situation by giving immediate explanation.

[Rickref]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3
I'd love to go table side after a call. There are many times that you can diffuse the situation by giving immediate explanation.

That is the intent of the change. I agree it's easier to diffuse situations from there than the other side of the court.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
To me that means right in the face and darn close. I have only seen this happen once in eight years.

That's my point. I've yet to see it in 17 years and you've seen it once in 8 years.

Is this really a problem?

Originally posted by Rickref
In our Assoc. we sometimes do 3 man at the JV level. It allows newer officials a good learnering opportunity, I can see where personal communication skills are going to have to improve or the amount of T's is sure to go up.

It's also going to result in a lot of technical fouls on JC coaches.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

That's my point. I've yet to see it in 17 years and you've seen it once in 8 years.

Is this really a problem?

It's like that rule change a year or two ago about pre-game activity in the center jump circle. We've had zero problem here in the Portland area, but somebody somewhere did have problesm, so they had to put it in there. I'm seeing this one the same way.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
It's like that rule change a year or two ago about pre-game activity in the center jump circle. We've had zero problem here in the Portland area, but somebody somewhere did have problesm, so they had to put it in there. I'm seeing this one the same way.

Actually, that's more a fad thing that more and more teams were beginning to do. For a fad to spread, more and more people have to see it and emulate. We saw quite a bit of this for a few years before the change. It also goes on in college football, which is probably where basketball teams first saw it. If they hadn't put a stop to it, you probably would have seen it eventually.

This change is different in that it's something that could occur during the game. I'd imagine that someone, somewhere saw it. But, seems unlikely to me.

[BktBallRef]

Working girls' AAU this weekend, so I'm looking forward to putting the tableside switch into practice.

Did it during one tourney this year.

The unusual thing is that under the old mechanic, the tableside C or T never switched.

With the new mechanic, it's like the floor has been reversed. If you ever get opposite, you could swallow your whistle and stay in the rocking chair all game.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I have no "inherient" problem with going table side. But I think that most HS officials are not capable enough of getting coaches off of them when they have to explain calls.

I was at a meeting tonight with a particular conference. And one of the individuals in attendance is a D1 Official. And his comment was, "now we are going to see who can referee." Because his evaluation of this is that the officials that do not have the "presence" (his word, not mine) are going to get eaten up. And the sign of a good referee is when a coach is not going nuts when an official makes a call. Because either the coach realizes that the official is not having it or they or they are going to try to test them. And he went on to say, for HS the T numbers are going to go up.

It was an interesting conversation.

Peace

I just wish the Fed would make up it's mind and use some consistency in their philosophy. Last year they changed the procedure to the non-calling official notifying coach and player of DQ on the 5th foul. Reasoning was that it would avoid confrontation. I hated that change not only because it's a chickensh!t way of doing business, but it really is awkward. Not that this matters to me personally, because we still work 2-man.

Mregor

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mregor


I just wish the Fed would make up it's mind and use some consistency in their philosophy. Last year they changed the procedure to the non-calling official notifying coach and player of DQ on the 5th foul. Reasoning was that it would avoid confrontation. I hated that change not only because it's a chickensh!t way of doing business, but it really is awkward. Not that this matters to me personally, because we still work 2-man.

Mregor

As I have said before, officiating is more than passing tests and just making calls. It is a lot about your communication and people skills. And if officials that can get high marks on other aspects of officiating, but cannot communicate or have the right demeanor to handle an angry coach in their face (and many officials cannot) they will have problems now. I never did get the "fear" some seem to have with telling a coach about a 5th foul, but many suggested it was a better way to go. Now you are going to have to be in front of that coach for all fouls you call. We will see who can take the heat and who cannot.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge

As I have said before, officiating is more than passing tests and just making calls. It is a lot about your communication and people skills. And if officials that can get high marks on other aspects of officiating, but cannot communicate or have the right demeanor to handle an angry coach in their face (and many officials cannot) they will have problems now. I never did get the "fear" some seem to have with telling a coach about a 5th foul, but many suggested it was a better way to go. Now you are going to have to be in front of that coach for all fouls you call. We will see who can take the heat and who cannot.

Peace

Jeff- I think that's what Roger said. The change he hated was the one that was made LAST year about the non-calling official notifying the coach on a 5th foul. He agrees with you that the calling official should be explaining and handling the coach.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker


Jeff- I think that's what Roger said. The change he hated was the one that was made LAST year about the non-calling official notifying the coach on a 5th foul. He agrees with you that the calling official should be explaining and handling the coach.

Juulie, I am not disagreeing with him. I am just saying I did not like the change either. And now all that "running" that officials advocated, is going to make them do what have to defend their decisions. Which is why I never understood the big deal about who notified the coach on the 5th foul.

But let us face it, the main reason this change was made was to make all levels the same. Mary Struckoff and others have experience or communications with NCAA Officials. Both the NCAA and NF Main Offices are both in Indianapolis. It has been common knowledge that both groups have communications. This is just a result of what has happen in the past 2 years.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

There are two differences:

#1 - In 3 man, the official calling the foul went opposite table after reporting. It made no sense for him to inform the coach, signal the timer, stand at the table, and wait for the sub when the tableside official was already standing there.

#2 - A 5th foul situation is a little more volatile. A foul a coach doesn't like is one thing. A foul that a coach doesn't like that fouls out his star player is another.

Since the calling official will now stay tableside, the old mechanic will be back.

[JRutledge]

This past season, all coaches did was complain that they wanted an explaination, when their player fouled out. So they spent 10 seconds yelling at the non-calling about how the call was terrible and how they could not believe he called that. When I was the official that was the non-calling official, half the time I did not really see the play. I like the fact that you have to be a man and explain yourself. So what if they complain, that is what coaches do. But just because you were going opposite table, did not mean you could not tell the coach which player fouled out.

I told this story before, but the biggest problem I had was when I was the non-calling official and both my partner and I (3 man game) both had a whistle, which I thought was on the same player. Apparantly we had different calls and when my partner ran and did not inform me who the foul was on, the coach went ballistic on me. I also gave him wrong information, because my partner was scared to tell me what he had, because the coach intimidated him. Now if this happens again, he will have to stand up to the coach. This is why I like this change.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally posted by Mregor

I just wish the Fed would make up it's mind and use some consistency in their philosophy. Last year they changed the procedure to the non-calling official notifying coach and player of DQ on the 5th foul. Reasoning was that it would avoid confrontation. I hated that change not only because it's a chickensh!t way of doing business, but it really is awkward. Not that this matters to me personally, because we still work 2-man.

Mregor

And it's about time that we start working three, too. However, since I'm already getting games for 2005-06 it's not going to happen in the next two seasons.

--Rich

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I like the fact that you have to be a man and explain yourself. So what if they complain, that is what coaches do. But just because you were going opposite table, did not mean you could not tell the coach which player fouled out.

Exactly. Every official draws their own, particular line in the sand anyway when it comes to what they are gonna take from a coach. That line should be consistent and shouldn't ever move,and it should never be dependant on your position on the court either. Nothing the matter with giving an explanation, no matter where you happen to be standing. The coach's response or actions after that are gonna determine whether you have to do anything further anyway. Just be consistent. The players and coaches have to know what your particular line is, no matter where you happen to be standing.