I've been thinking about the new team control foul rule. All non-intentional, non-flagrant, non-technical fouls by the offensive team will now fall under this rule, right? Is this intended to simplify things and speed things up? What's the rationale? Anyone know?

I really don't know specifically what the rationale is for this, but any rule that makes the HS game more like the college game is good IMO.

I don't know why we just don't adopt college rules for HS. It would make things a lot simpler.

1) It's designed to speed the game up, yes.

2) All fouls by the team <i> in control </i> are the ones that fall under this rule. I know that's splitting hairs in a way... but some would refer to a rebounding foul on the team that just attempted a shot as an "offensive rebounding foul." Since team control ended when the shot went up, this kind of foul would not be a team control foul and we would still shoot bonus free throws.

Z

BTW - the new mechanic for this call is to use one finger on each hand in the "shame, shame" motion.

Please, no cracks about which finger.

Mark,
Men's or Women's?
Who will hire the unemployed Rulesmakers?
Who will teach the players the new rules?
Does Fed reimburse NCAA for doing the work?
Would high school and college camps run concurrently?
What shirts do officials wear?
;)

1. Men's for boys games. Women's for girls games. DUH!
2. FEEBLE
3. The same people who teach them now - no one.
4. Yeah, like the NCAA needs more money.
5. Um, sure. Like I know what "concurrently" means.
6. Referee jerseys.

:D

With the new rule, all fouls by the team in control are treated the same...no more "Did that player pass the ball before they crashed into the defender or after??" We don't have A3 being called for a PC foul and B getting no free throws, and then B2 being called for an illegal screen at the other end and A gets free throws...it really makes it much simpler.

I say we go to the soccer shirts. I think I'd look good in blue. :p

You said the "S word". :mad:

Would you rather me say the "F word"? :cool:

Signals
 

Apparently the NF is not going to use a new signal for this foul either. Did anyone else here see the Referee Magazine article on the new rules for this coming year?

All you are supposed to do is call a foul, signal the type of foul; point to the other end of the floor; indicate the spot for the designated spot throw-in. That is all that is it. No new signal will be used this year.

Peace

Re: Signals
 

Well, speaking as one of those bumpkins south of I-80 ;) it seem like there will be confusion as to communicating which type of foul we have, "offensive" or "defensive". Granted, I'm looking at it from a NCAA-W perspective, but their signal of the "punch" definitely conveys we are not shooting any bonus free throws. Any other signal conveys it wasn't an offensive foul. In the case of a NF foul, we could give a signal for a push, point to a spot OOB, and our partners not know what's happening until we get to the table and give the color of the offensive team. Even then, if it's a rebounding foul, there might be some confusion as to whether we are shooting the bonus or not. Granted, the new mechanic has us pointing the other direction, but I'm not sure that still effectively communicates "no shots". It will be interesting to see how that plays out this year.

Re: Re: Signals
 

I know I will press those about this when the meetings start. I work for the head clinician of our state in his conference. I will make sure I ask him about this issue directly.

BTW I started officiating below I-80 too. I just roll my eyes when I hear those comments.

Peace

Re: Re: Signals
 

M&M Guy,
Which team is in control on a rebound? ;)
mick

Well, speaking as one of those bumpkins south of I-80, it seem like there will be confusion as to communicating which type of foul we have, "offensive" or "defensive". Granted, I'm looking at it from a NCAA-W perspective, but their signal of the "punch" definitely conveys we are not shooting any bonus free throws. Any other signal conveys it wasn't an offensive foul. In the case of a NF foul, we could give a signal for a push, point to a spot OOB, and our partners not know what's happening until we get to the table and give the color of the offensive team. Even then, if it's a rebounding foul, there might be some confusion as to whether we are shooting the bonus or not. Granted, the new mechanic has us pointing the other direction, but I'm not sure that still effectively communicates "no shots". It will be interesting to see how that plays out this year. [/B][/QUOTE]Use any signal that you want to use.

Didn't you read the other thread?

Mary Struckhoff said it was OK.

I can almost guarantee there is going to be MAJOR confusion over this rule. I do think it is a great change, however.

Z brings up a good situation: rebounding action. Team B in the bonus. A1 Shoots, A2 fouls B2 in an attempt to gain the rebound. By rule, B2 gets the bonus free throws. Can you imagine trying to explain team control to the coach of team A? Like anything, some coaches are going to understand it, but I think there are going to be some problems for the first year of the new rule.

Add to that lack of a signal for a team control foul, and I can definitely see some confusion coming this year. Why don't we just use the same signal as player control, which everyone knows means no shots?

That is not what she said. She said that any state can come up with mechanics that might vary from the NF Official's Manual. I can tell you that if officials do not use the proper mechanics (IHSA mechanics), it can and has affected officials playoff opportunities.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

The referee team, of course, is always in control. ;)

You know about team control. I know about team control. But we aren't the ones doin' the yelling or complaining. I guess the point I was trying to make has to do with the communication aspect - how do we communicate with our partners, the players, and the coaches that we will not be shooting free throws on this foul? I use the rebounding foul as an example: if the ball is coming of the rim after a shot, and A1 pushes B1 in the back to clear out, I'll blow the whistle, give the push signal, and point the other way to let people know we're going towards B's basket. But, B1 will also be shooting the bonus. Now, in the same play, let's say A2 gets the rebound, then A1 pushes B1, I've got essentially the same signals, but we're not shooting the bonus. So, how will people know without doing a lot of extra verbal communicating? I would think a different signal would be a big help.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

M&M Guy,
Not to worry. When they see the Team Control signal (whatever you show), they'll know the ball is merely going the other way.

After the second game the fans will catch on. :)
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

Second game of which year? ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

I agree, I can't understand why they didn't adopt a TC signal. OTOH, it is not a big deal to communicate with your partners what you have - in your play a simple "no control, we're shooting bonus FTs" should do it. In fact, as I think of it there's no reason why that wouldn't work with your average head-about-to-explode coach.

As for the fans... :rolleyes:

Ooooh, can I use the swirlie signal? That could mean the coach and I are going to go 'round and 'round about team control...

You could use your middle finger extant for the team control foul signal. As long as everyone in your state is also using the same finger, apparently that's fine with Mary Struckhoff. :D

Seriously, I can't see anything the matter with using the NCAA Woman's "punch", as long as everyone in your area is also using it. I imagine that, somewhere along the line, one of the high foreheads at the FED will tell us what signal that they want us to use though .

In college, team control exists during a throw-in for the purpose of fouls (so no free throws) My understanding that the new high school rule does not consider a team throwing the ball in to have team control, so we would have free throws if A2 pushes off B2 while A1 is with the ball OOB (B2 shooting if in bonus). Anyone know if this difference will exist?

Sigh...can't use the middle finger signal because that's the signal I use to respond to the coach's, "You'll never work here again" comments. :D

"One of the high foreheads at the FED" - is that the same as, "pencil-headed geeks"? Or are we talking about a slightly different usage here? Anyway, whoever they are, I hope they come up with something. Don't get me wrong, I love the change, but I'm worried that the time saved by not shooting FT's will be more than used up by conferences, huddles, and explanations trying to figure things out, especially by the less-experienced officials.

Your understanding is corect. The NFHS team control foul rule will not apply during throw-ins, as per the FED website .

Re: Signals
 

All this discussion about a lack of a signal or confusion and JRutledge's post has a clear element overlook throughout the whole discussion...I've highlighted it in red.

That IS the new signal sequence. Sure, it's not a NEW signal, but its a clear use of existing signals. I've actually seen it used several times in college games.

Pointing the other direction should be clear enough while keeping the nature of the foul (something that the PC signal lacks).

Re: Re: Signals
 

Can't you point to the other end and say, "White 23, you are shooting," too?;)

Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

No way. I'm not giving white 23 any more calls. He's been griping all game. In fact, I think I'll toss him just for the fun of it!

So there.

Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

If we use the signal only in non-shooting situations, it should be clear enough. If we're shooting, come up with the 1n1 or 2. If we're throwing it in, come up with the point.

Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

Of course...but the next step was designating a spot.

Sure, it's not one signal to communicate the entire message but we've got a set that works.

I think the most important issue in most offensive fouls not involving the player with the ball is the fact that there was a foul on the offense....many coaches and spectators will not have any idea what the whistle was for since they're all watching the ball.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

When I have an off ball call on the offense, everyone knows it. It is very important to vocalize what you have. It's amazing how well a simple illegal screen or push off works.

I still think we should be taking the PC signal to the table for team control fouls.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

I agree that it is clear once you communicate it as you do...but at the crack of the whistle, a lot of people will be on the edge of their seats awaiting the call. When the call is on ball, many know what the whistle is for before the communication even starts.

While we do have a workable set of signals available, I too would like a single signal (perhaps the PC signal) for a TC foul.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Signals
 

HE GONE!!!!!!!!