<b>1. Sporting Behavior.</b> The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned with player, coach and fan behavior. While administrators continue to focus on solutions, it is imperative that all parties involved accept responsibility and improve behavior. Specifically, the committee wants the following addressed:

<b>A. Uniforms:</b> Players are increasingly using their uniforms in unsporting ways. Examples include: Holding the uniform out from the chest area to display the team name to the opponent or fans; pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display; and removing the jersey either on the court or near the team bench, especially after a disqualification. The committee expects jerseys to be worn properly and remain on. New Rule 3-4-15 adds, “A player shall not remove the jersey and/or pants/skirt in the confines of the playing area.” The result is a technical foul.

Uniforms must be worn as intended and the rule must be enforced. The jersey must be tucked in and shorts must be worn properly. When a player is in violation of the rule, the player is directed to leave the game. While an untucked jersey during the normal course of play is understandable until it can be corrected, too often there are multiple warnings for clear violations. Coaches bear a great responsibility in ensuring uniforms stay on team members. Officials must enforce the rule.

<b>B. Time-outs:</b> When a team goes on a scoring run, emotions often run high. Nationwide, there is an apparent increase in bench personnel running out onto the court after a time-out is whistled. Typically, the bench personnel of the team that has gained momentum run out onto the court to celebrate and congratulate their teammates. The other team’s players, heading toward their bench area, often cross with the celebrating team. This situation often leads to bumping, pushing and/or taunting.

Coaches must make sure that bench personnel remain in the team bench area (1-13-3) after a time-out is called. Officials must be aware of the potential for confrontation, use preventive officiating techniques and penalize appropriately.

<b>C. Spectators:</b> There has been emphasis over the years on player and coach behavior and the trends show improvement. However, fan behavior remains a critical concern. Too often, fans are using abusive language toward coaches, players and officials. Fans are also approaching the court, team areas and locker rooms – places that used to be “off limits” – to confront participants.

Game administrators must create and follow security procedures and support efforts to have offending fans removed from the premises. Proactive policies lead to fewer problems. It is the game administrator’s ultimate responsibility to provide a safe environment for players, coaches and officials. Do not wait for the official to point out the problem. If it gets to the point that the officials have to address fan behavior, there were most likely opportunities for game administrators to deal with it before it got to that point.

Officials should never directly confront fans. Find the game administrator to take care of the problem. In extreme cases, delay the game until the offending fan is removed. Coaches must not incite fan behavior. The coach’s sideline actions often have an impact on fan behavior – positively or negatively. Schools are encouraged to have security personnel on site for such situations.

<b>D. Coaching box:</b> The committee wants coaches to stay in the coaching box. There is a constant problem when coaches wander. It is a distinct advantage to the coach who is permitted to be out of the box because the coach has a better chance to communicate with his/her team. The coach can also influence play by being out on the court.

The rule is black-and-white, but it has not been dealt with properly. Most officials have not enforced the rule. The fact that the coach is not directing comments to the officials or is “coaching the team” has no bearing on rule enforcement. The coach who continually abuses the coaching-box rule risks having his or her governing body remove it completely. The official who doesn’t enforce it runs the risk of not following what the governing body wants enforced.

Once the coaching box has been removed because of a technical foul, all related rules restrictions must apply. There’s no way to get the box back after the privilege has been lost.

Assistant coaches must be seated at all times except during time-outs, to attend to an injured player after being beckoned and to spontaneously react to a play. The rules that permit a head coach to rise in certain situations (time-outs, confer with table personnel for a correctable error, dealing with disqualifications) do not apply to assistant coaches under any circumstances. Again, the fact that an assistant coach is “only coaching” has no bearing on the rule or enforcement.

Head coaches have the responsibility to remain in the box. School administrators must support that by demanding their coaches do so. When violated, the official must enforce the rule with a technical foul.

<b>2. Free Throws.

A. Lane spaces.</b> There has been much debate on what — if anything — to do with free-throw situations. Some want rules that would move players up on the low block or even eliminate the first lane space. The theory: The players underneath the basket are at a rebounding disadvantage. Data collected from a variety of sources does not support that theory.

Multiple studies show players in the first marked lane space garner roughly 75-80 percent of all free throw rebounds. That is a range the rules committee finds acceptable and is consistent with historical norms. The team closest to the basket is supposed to get most of the rebounds! The rules in this case are not designed to give each team an equal chance or guarantee a rebound to the defense.

<b>B. Rough play.</b> Keeping the block between players continues to serve its initial purpose. It reduces rough play. The same is true for player restrictions ending when the attempt hits the ring. Still, rough play is a concern. Coaches must not teach players to “lock up” arms along the lane line, nor drive players further under the basket with brute force. Officials must call those fouls.

<b>C. Disconcertion.</b> Free-throw disconcertion must be carefully monitored. Of particular concern is when the free throw will become dead (first of two or first two of three). Defensive players often employ tactics which serve no other purpose than to disconcert the shooter during free throws (“boxing out” the free thrower off the free-throw line, waving arms, yelling instructions to teammates, etc.). Another increasing trend is opponents outside the arc saying things to the thrower. With team free-throw percentages hovering in the mid-60’s on average, teams welcome a second chance free throw. They deserve it if disconcertion occurs and officials must call it.

<b>3. Intentional Fouls.</b> The committee is concerned about how games end. The intentional foul rule has devolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

<b>A. Anytime in the game.</b> Acts that neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position and must be deemed intentional include:
• Excessive contact on any player attempting a shot
• Grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored
• Grabbing and holding a player from behind or away from the ball
These are “non-basketball” plays and must be considered intentional fouls anytime they occur during a game.

<b>B. Late in the game.</b> Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped. There is widespread belief that it works or it wouldn’t be coached.

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. “Going for the ball” is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells, “Foul!” instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is “automatically” an intentional foul — even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.

With that, officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule. Far too often, officials do not whistle fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria. Officiating philosophies should not change because of the time remaining in the game or the score differential. The correct call should be made — not the popular one.

I guess that adds clarification to the debate about whether we should automatically call an intentional foul based on the coach yelling at his team to "FOUL!" Whether an intentional foul is called or not should be determined by the actions of the player who commits the foul.

Thank you for posting this. I was going to ask a question regarding intentional fouls at the end of games. I had a situation in our tournament last weekend (7th grade girls AAU ball) where my team was up by one point with 3.4 seconds left. It was our possession, we inbounded to our guard. My guard pivoted with her back to the defender. The defender grabbed her by the shoulders from behind and gave her a great heave, shoving her out of bounds and into the team bench.

I asked the ref it that would be an intentional foul since there was no attempt to play the ball. Asked, not screamed, not cursed, no anger involved. He told me I had no idea about rules, coaches never do, what did I think I was in the NBA, that there was no such thing as intentional in high school rules, plus a few other things that I didn't catch as he walked off. After the game the other ref told me that no one ever calls an intentional foul in AAU or rec ball, that it would cause the other coach to go ballistic so they have been told to let the players decide the game, not the ref on a final call.

We did win the game, I just thought that the intentional foul call was meant to discourage coaches from teaching this kind of play. I'm glad I come here I learn so much from this site and the information that's posted.

Coach Gbert

Coach,

I call what happens first, not what happens second. I was not there and I cannot say if the foul was intentional or not. I just know that I do not call what happens second, unless that might warrant another foul. Usually a defender grabs a player when they think the first foul is not going to be called. It also is a sign of desperation.

I will also say that official's feelings are not true as it relates to AAU ball where I live. He might be right in your area or where that tournament was held. I call the game pretty much the same way I do during HS or college games. The clock is running most of the time, that is just more time to rest. ;) So if there is a reason to call a foul like that, I would call it.

Peace

Coach Gilbert, I too, as a coach, find this site very valuable. Problem is, refs that say what the ref in your game said are not the ones coming here trying to get better.

As coaches, we have to be careful about expecting all referees to be as concerned about the proper calls as the ones that post here.

I have tried discussing some of the points here with a ref a day or two after a game and he wanted no part of it. He had no interest in improving or even discussing situations.

We need to use this site to gain understanding, but we can't get frustrated when the guys doing our games lack the same understanding.

Wasn't it just 2 or 3 years ago that the fed was complaining that 'strategic fouls' only served to make the game too long? And didn't they also tell us a coach yelling "FOUL 'EM!" is an automatic intentional?

The least the committee could have done was admit they completely reversed their stand on this.

I'm glad the fed has finally adopted this interpretation btw.

Also wanted to add that I was wrong on the new dress rule. I'm surprised they want us to enforce it this way, time will tell if it reamins this strict.

The problem with that Dan is that there are different people on the committee than there was when the original interpretation was put out that "FOUL'EM" was considered "automatic." I do not feel that they are dismissing their previous ruling. I think different people are dealing with some different circumstances. I am sure this change was also made because there was a lot of conflict over the previous ruling. That is why they addressed it the way they did in my opinion.

Peace

Yup, sure was. It was dumb, too. So instead of yelling "FOUL!", the coach yells "BANANAS!" Same result, but different calls? Dumb.

Yup.

I hope that POE about the coaching box helps. On about 90% of the games where I am not the referee, I hear the following from the R: "I don't care where the coaches as long as they aren't yelling at me." Grrrrrrr.

Z

I call my end of game fouling strategy "NC State" in honor of Jimmy V. I think Banana's would make my players laugh too much to foul.

Jeff, the committee exactly reversed itself, in a very short time, on a major issue.

Obviously the committee's membership changes but the members represent a single body and the least we can expect from a single body is consistency, or an acknowledgement that a prior interpretations is about to be reversed. They (the committee) made a very big deal out of this not too long ago, the least they could have done was acknowledge the ncaa's lead and use that as justification for their reversal.

To not do so makes them seem very arbitrary (that's a fancy way of saying it looks like they don't know what the hell they're doing) unless you've been following along very closely.

TigerBball posted:
I call my end of game fouling strategy "NC State" in honor of Jimmy V. I think Banana's would make my players laugh too much to foul.

Yeah, now you can scream "FOUL 'EM!!!" to your heart's content, but you'll need to teach your players how, when & who to foul! :)

[Edited by Dan_ref on May 11th, 2005 at 11:46 AM]

Dan,

No disagreement here. I just think they really do not want to address the deeds of previous committee decisions. I am also speaking from previous experience in other sports. They do not do that in football or baseball either when changes go back and forth. They just make a change and many times they do not address why the change was made.

Peace

I address the end-of-game intentionals a little differently in the summer than I do in-season. In the summer, I will 'warn' to be careful of the intentional foul if a player is trying to foul and grabs the shirt or pushes lightly. I will say it loud enough for both coaches and benches to hear, and I will then resume play. In-season, no warning, that is the coaches' job. Only reason I do this (mostly at the lower level) is because the summer is more of a teaching time, IMO. Otherwise, I am also working on things, such as college mechanics, game management, focus, etc. I use the summer ball period as my learning and improving ground as well.

I hate it when it happens. Near the end of the year the president of our association gave everyone a lecture at one of the meetings on enforcing the coaching box. The next week I heard the same "if there coaching I don't care where they are" from one of the veteran officials. It drives me nuts!


[Edited by gostars on May 12th, 2005 at 10:02 AM]

The biggest intentional foul I called was in this past year's IHSA Regional Final. The call could have changed the outcome of the game. I called the IF on a defender that completely grabbed from behind. The main reason I called it was mainly it was so obvious. If anyone saw the tape could understand why I called the foul. I just simply take the attitude if it jumps out at you, call it. If there is any doubt or it is iffy, then you can pass on it. I think that should be the barometer for everyone. We all know that at the end of the game players are trying to foul. Just use good common sense.

Peace

Just for the record-- from the 2000-01 POE's:
-"Acts that must be deemed intentional include when a coach/player says <i>watch, we're going to foul</i>".

I think that very few officials followed that, anyway, as long as the defender made some kinda half-a$$ed attempt to play the ball. Now the FED recognizes a "strategic" foul and is telling us to call it the way that most of us were already calling it. That doesn't include the few officials that lack the testicular fortitude to <b>ever</b> call an intentional foul, no matter how obvious it is- which is why an IF is a POE again this year.

This is how I've always called it but I like that it is a POE, so if a coach give me that "why'd you call that?" look then I can give him the "Its POE for 2005" look.

And the coach would say, "what's a POE"

And you would say - <i>"point of emphasis, dickhead"</i>. :D

That's always good for the ol' coach/official relationship.

If the people will lead, the leaders will follow!

Why should they start now. They completely changed the LGP rule by "interpretation" 2-3 years ago. They didn't even call it a rule change.

Did they really make a change in the definition?
 

I haven't seen the new Rules Book in print yet, but it sounds like they have changed the definition of an intentional foul.

The current wording is:
4-19
ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


What is posted on the website is:

The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


The current wording makes the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting enough for it to meet the definition of an intentional foul. Notice the use of the word "or" in the sentence contruction.

The revised paragraph uses a different construction, which splits the criteria into two sentences. The first tells us that a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage shall be deemed an intentional foul. However, the second sentence groups the stopping of the clock or keeping it from starting together with contact away from the ball or not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. This means that BOTH of these elements must be present together in order for the foul to meet the definition and be deemed an intentional foul. In other words, the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock by itself is no longer sufficient for the foul to be intentional. The foul must also be committed away from the ball or not be a legitimate attempt to play the ball. However, a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position need not also be designed to stop the clock; it is enough in and of itself to qualify as intentional.

This is a big change. I truly wonder if the committee really did change the wording of the definiton because without doing that, they can say whatever they want on the website, but the rule hasn't changed. I'm anxious to see the new book.

[Edited by Nevadaref on May 13th, 2005 at 05:04 AM]

The website says that the rule <b>hasn't</b> been changed. It's just been <b>clarified</b>. Iow, the language may have been changed slightly but the purpose and intent of the rule remains the same.

The situations that they mention must be called this year are exactly the same as the the ones they mentioned in the 2000-01 POE's. The only real difference is they've changed their minds about calling an intentional foul if the coach says "foul "em". I don't blame them for backing down on that one, because that was a dumb interpretation anyway- and one that most everybody ignored if the defender went for the ball.

I agree, JR.
My rationalization for calling the act, and not the verbal command, was that the player may not have heard the coach, which made the coach's command moot.
mick

And my point is that the slight change in the wording really does make a BIG change in the rule, no matter what they say. (If, in fact, the committee has changed the wording.) They can say whatever they want about a clarification, as we learned from the LGP fiasco, but a change is still a change.

Under the old wording if you fouled to stop the clock, it was an intentional foul, but if we go with the wording in the "clarification" it would be allowed (only resulting in a common foul) as long as a legitimate attempt to play the ball was made. That is a fundamental change in the rules.

So while the examples that they did provide are the same as before and would still result in intentional fouls, they don't give the example that I just did in the above paragraph. That play is going to have to be called differently, if they changed the wording of the rule.

You're grabbing for straws, NV. That's not what it's saying.

And my point is that a "clarification" is basically the same thing as a case play being issued. Iow the rule is the same, but they want to make sure that we know exactly how that particular rule is supposed to be interpreted.

No big deal either way. The important thing is that the play gets called uniformly across the country.

Take it up with your local association. This current interpretation was basically how we were informed to call it or to use our judgment toward this rule. Now this just confirms that our area was consistent with what should be done. Interpretations change over time. Especially when one interpretation has little common sense involved. This is really not that big of a deal. Take it up with your local association and call it the way they want you to.

Peace

Question about the uniform rules: Say a player gets ejected, removes his shirt before leaving the court, T is assessed. The player has already been ejected, so would the T be a team technical?

Could someone also explain POE (point of emphasis) so I know I'm clear on the subject.

Thanks

Yes, in FED, all direct T's count as team fouls. Additionally, if the coach has been notified of A1's DQ, then the T is applied indirectly to the head coach.

Gotta be a little more specific here, Alex. They're all written out on page 1 of this thread. Which one is confusing you?

I guess I didn't state the question correctly for what I wanted to know. The player ejected can't be assessed another T, who would get the T? Coach? Bench T?

I think I just confused myself with the wording, I was thinking POE described was for a game situation, well it is but now I understand its a subject of interpretation instead of a game situation. I could just be wrong again though, its been a long week :)

Any player T is assessed to the player in question. If that player is on the bench, then you have a T on the player and an indirect T toward the coach because that player is bench personnel.

Which POE are you talking about? :confused:

Peace

Originally I thought POE was the same as POI (Point of infraction). Now I realize POE is a specific subject of interpretation (I'm not asking about a specific subject). Thanks for clearing that up.

Woops, what a week it has been :)

There's your mistake right there. A disqualified player certainly can be assessed a technical foul. It gets charged directly to the player and counts toward the team foul total for the half.

You may be thinking of the NCAA interpretation that tells us not to issue a third T to a head coach who has already received two. (This resulted from the Bobby K/Teddy V incident.)

But in FED, any team member (player, sub, coach) can be assessed a T, even if they're already DQ'd.

BTW, I called you Alex in my previous post, but now I'm wondering if you're Luke. (Give in to the dark side, you knob!) What should I call you?

I know my father
 

I guess I wasn't aware a player could receive a T after they have been ejected, thanks

Luke is my name, but I won't call you father :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lukealex

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias Quote: BTW, I called you Alex in my previous post, but now I'm wondering if you're Luke. (Give in to the dark side, you knob!) What should I call you? Luke is my name, but I won't call you father :)

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Cartoon/Gif/swdeath.gif

Careful, JR - you don't want to be makin' fun of those dead people again...

:D

PS - Where the hell do find those? And, more importantly, where do you find the time to find them?

This is no change. If they played the ball even with the goal of stopping the clock, it was never an intentional foul.

M & M -- They must have put him back in the Happy Valley "Care" Facility this week. When he's in there, he has LOTS of time on his hands!

M & M -- They must have put him back in the Happy Valley "Care" Facility this week. When he's in there, he has LOTS of time on his hands! [/B][/QUOTE]But I'm planning my escape......

And when I do.......:eek: