Let's take a poll

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Okay, so my answer is more than one...

Scoot the rebounders back one block during free throw attempts - like women's college ball.

Require 3-man mechanics for schools with enrollment exceeding a particular number - the largest schools.

Recommend an evaluation/ranking system (methodology) that would actually work for most associations. And have it include that if a coach blackballs you from their games then they cannot evaluate/rank your performance.

And the only thing I see wrong with locating the coaches box in the parking lot is that you won't get to see their frustration once you have them seatbelted.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by ref18

Now a high school game lasts about 75-90 minutes. How much time will all these jump balls tack on?? If anyone was reffing before the AP arrow, how long did the average game take back then??

I remember doing girls games and lower level games of both boys and girls prior to the alternating possession. What a MESS! Jump balls every minute! NO WAY would I go back to jump balls.

My rule change: Fouls at the end of the game - have the team who is fouled have the choice of either a FT or a throw-in. This would force B to really earn the ball back by playing good defense. It would cut down on an interminable march to the FT line. I think international rules have or had this at one time.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Since I am supposed to be getting clothes was and packed for the family trip (we are supposed to leave by car tomorrow morning) to Florida to visit my mother and sister I am not supposed to be fooling around online but I-75, from north of the OHIO-michigan border to well south of the Ohio River, is supposed to get about 12" of snow between now and mid-day tomorrow, so you can see why I really do not have my heart into getting ready for the trip.

...and the Run On Sentence of the Year Award for 2004 goes to.....Mark! Come on up here and get your prize! The coveted Pregnant Woman statuette goes to you!

No Mark, you can't say a few words in thanks...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

...and the Run On Sentence of the Year Award for 2004 goes to.....Mark! Come on up here and get your prize! The coveted Pregnant Woman statuette goes to you!

No Mark, you can't say a few words in thanks...

ROFLMA, but she can't be pregnant, I had that operation 7 years ago.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I had that operation 7 years ago.

MTD, Sr.

You mean the lobotomy?


Another rule others have mentioned that I believe has merit is allowing a fouled team in the last two minutes to choose to shoot free throws or inbound the ball.

One thing to consider about going to POI after a T - currently the penalty penalizes a team that commits a T on offense more than a team that commits one on defense. I fail to see the logic in thinking a team has a greater responsiblity to behave properly when they have the ball then when they don't. I have long thought the reason for adding possession to the penalty is that the NF does not have confidence in HS refs to know the POI situation with making almost no errors. It's the same logic they used years ago when they eliminated almost all the jumps and installed the AP arrow. Hey NF - we're not dummies and we know how to toss a ball straight up in the air.

[missinglink]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
If you could change only one NF rule, what would it be? Here are some candidates:

1) do not allow BI to be called on a throw in
2) following a technical, go to POI
3) eliminate closely guarded and backcourt counts in shot clock games
4) make all unsportsmanlike technicals also indirects on the head coach
5) make the penalty for reaching across the boundary and hitting the ball on a throw in a team technical instead of an individual technical
6) go to the NBA rule for how many players can be in marked lane spaces on free throws
7) put the coaching boxes in the parking lot

Not rules per se but mechanics:
1) Two man positioning of the officials during 60 second timeout. Right now from the blocks if we crane our necks, we can still barely see the timer signaling to us or the players checking in. Maybe NFHS organization can pick a spot for us beyond the end line?
2) Non-calling official player disqualification notification procedure. Tweet, foul, report, "Oh, that's 5 fouls on #12? Hang on, I will go get my partner so he can tell the coach who is twelve feet away from me and is already looking at me."

I have only been officiating for a couple years, but these two changes have not done any good. Perhaps NHFS should stop helping so hard.

[som44]

I have to go with coaches calling time out when ball is live.

Though here in NH, players are forced to wear mouthpieces which I don't agree with. Let them do it by choice--live free or die!

[som44]

missinglink,

we pregame the 5th foul reporting and if not a "tough" situation let the calling official notify coach also.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

You mean the lobotomy?


Another rule others have mentioned that I believe has merit is allowing a fouled team in the last two minutes to choose to shoot free throws or inbound the ball.

One thing to consider about going to POI after a T - currently the penalty penalizes a team that commits a T on offense more than a team that commits one on defense. I fail to see the logic in thinking a team has a greater responsiblity to behave properly when they have the ball then when they don't. I have long thought the reason for adding possession to the penalty is that the NF does not have confidence in HS refs to know the POI situation with making almost no errors. It's the same logic they used years ago when they eliminated almost all the jumps and installed the AP arrow. Hey NF - we're not dummies and we know how to toss a ball straight up in the air.

I had that one done 35 years ago. How do you thing I have managed to officiate for 34 years.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

You mean the lobotomy?


Another rule others have mentioned that I believe has merit is allowing a fouled team in the last two minutes to choose to shoot free throws or inbound the ball.

One thing to consider about going to POI after a T - currently the penalty penalizes a team that commits a T on offense more than a team that commits one on defense. I fail to see the logic in thinking a team has a greater responsiblity to behave properly when they have the ball then when they don't. I have long thought the reason for adding possession to the penalty is that the NF does not have confidence in HS refs to know the POI situation with making almost no errors. It's the same logic they used years ago when they eliminated almost all the jumps and installed the AP arrow. Hey NF - we're not dummies and we know how to toss a ball straight up in the air.

Mark:

I am not a fan of the POI of interuption technical foul. I don't like in the NCAA rule book because there are some exceptions to the rules. I see no really good reason for POI technical foul. Just penalize the fouls in the order that they occur. Remember the most important rule of any endeavor: K.I.S.S.

MTD, Sr.

[missinglink]

Originally posted by som44
missinglink,

we pregame the 5th foul reporting and if not a "tough" situation let the calling official notify coach also.

good on your group for common sense flex. Given my seniority I am inclined (and encouraged) to go by the book.

[nine01c]

We here in Massachusetts were required to enforce the mouthguard usage starting last season. I hope one actually saves a kid from a major head injury or jaw surgery, because they sure are a pain in the neck. One advantage is that the kids are quieter, but they are also more slobbery (as is the ball) and chew on the things and drop them, etc. I would make them optional if I had a choice.

Also, we referees who officiate from IAABO Boards (most of the boards in the state) have abandoned the NFHS mechanic of going to the far lower blocks on time outs (60 seconds which is all we have). We have gone to the "old" way where one ref is at the throw-in spot, and the other is on the edge of the center circle, table side. The rationale is that no one (coaches) knew where the throw-in was going to be when we were standing on those far away blocks. This works much better.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by nine01c
We here in Massachusetts were required to enforce the mouthguard usage starting last season. I hope one actually saves a kid from a major head injury or jaw surgery, because they sure are a pain in the neck. One advantage is that the kids are quieter, but they are also more slobbery (as is the ball) and chew on the things and drop them, etc. I would make them optional if I had a choice.

Also, we referees who officiate from IAABO Boards (most of the boards in the state) have abandoned the NFHS mechanic of going to the far lower blocks on time outs (60 seconds which is all we have). We have gone to the "old" way where one ref is at the throw-in spot, and the other is on the edge of the center circle, table side. The rationale is that no one (coaches) knew where the throw-in was going to be when we were standing on those far away blocks. This works much better.

This would get my vote!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I couldn't have answered it better myself, if I'd been asked!

Uh, you were. Sorry I stole yer thunder.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
...and the Run On Sentence of the Year Award for 2004 goes to.....Mark!

Having won the Slappy in this category last year, and thus recognizing the prestige and respect that comes along with it, I feel obliged to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mark, his local officiating association and indeed all of IAABO (since Mark represents the organization so proudly and well); but also need to point out to Mark -- and any other officials who may aspire to this coveted award -- that with the aforementioned prestige and respect of this award comes a truly heavy burden to pass on the fine tradition of run-on sentences and to instill a sense of values in younger officials posting here that provides a basis for them to begin writing their own run-ons, which will undoubtedly be rather feeble (no FIBA comments please, Mr. Padgett) attempts at first; but which, with the Mark's guidance and reknowned attention to detail will blossom into run-on sentences of which we can all feel the same pride and admiration that we feel for Mark's achievements here today.