Rules Changes

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
10-3-3 Now only says it's a T to "Delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

That seems to be quite a bind - by my reading of that, you can't even 'step it up' and call a T on the defense if their going out of bounds affects the play.

Any chance we'll see an online clarification on this from the NFHS?

[Nevadaref]

How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If they add the concept of team control into the throw-in, it creates a lot of complications. I'd rather shoot 1-and-1.

How so?

Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be?

[Edited by blindzebra on Jul 31st, 2005 at 04:50 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
How about the Team Control definition in rule 4? Did they add during the throw-in to team control or are we going to go through the same process as the NCAA and shoot 1-and-1 for a year?

Nope, In FED there's no team control during a throw-in and therefore no team control fouls during a throw-in. Why they didn't choose to follow the NCAA exception, I don't have a clue.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Wow, there really seems to be a BIG loophole in this. The NCAA kept the T in the book for a very good reason. The defender running OOB to get around a screen. It seems the the NFHS has been pretty short-sighted and removed that. I don't think that a violation is enough to prevent defenders from doing this.

A smart coach will now have his kids purposely run OOB to get around screens set along the end line or side line. Why not? If the official stops the game and calls a violation, who cares? The offense had an advantageous position anyway because the defender was going to be picked off leaving an opponent wide open. Especially, if the defender is beaten and can't get to his opponent who is going to receive a pass for a good shot. So stopping the game hurts the offense.
If the official doesn't call a violation, then the defender gains an advantage in trying to prevent the shot.

Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

If there were really a player who could, from one side of the lane, recognize a shooter in the opposite corner, go OOB around two screens and get to the shooter before the shot is gone, we've got 1 of 2 things: a shooter that is as slower than Christmas or a defender that could outrun an F16.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 1st, 2005 at 03:00 PM]

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Originally posted by rainmaker

That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago [quote]

How so?

Other than a throw-in pass going back court, which would only require an exception ala NCAA rules, what other complications would there be?

[/B]

The complication was a throw in - and team control - ended on the legal touch. This meant if the throw in was tapped but not controlled you could have a situation after the tap but before the ball was controlled on the court where a foul was NOT a TC foul.

This changed the following year, TC now doesn't end on a throw-in until a player controls the ball on the court.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2005 at 02:05 PM]

[blindzebra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Originally posted by rainmaker

That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago

The complication was a throw in - and team control - ended on the legal touch. This meant if the throw in was tapped but not controlled you could have a situation after the tap but before the ball was controlled on the court where a foul was NOT a TC foul.

This changed the following year, TC now doesn't end on a throw-in until a player controls the ball on the court.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2005 at 02:05 PM] [/B]

Ah, but that would not be the case under FED rules, since a touch by B does not end TC under the current rules.

As I see it, if there is team control during a throw-in you just have a live ball being passed among teammates, and all you'd need is the back court exception if the throw-in comes from the FC.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by blindzebra

That's not quite the way it was. TC fouls applied on throw ins when the ncaa changed this rule a few years ago

Ah, but that would not be the case under FED rules, since a touch by B does not end TC under the current rules.[/b]

The way I understand the new fed rule there is not TC on a throw-in so the touch is irrelevant.

As I see it, if there is team control during a throw-in you just have a live ball being passed among teammates, and all you'd need is the back court exception if the throw-in comes from the FC.

Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

[blindzebra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The way I understand the new fed rule there is not TC on a throw-in so the touch is irrelevant.

Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

[/B]

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra

As I see it, if there is team control during a throw-in you just have a live ball being passed among teammates, and all you'd need is the back court exception if the throw-in comes from the FC.

Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why would you need an entire exception for BC violation but only an editorial change for 3 second violation?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Got 1 more exception, here's a hint:

"C'mon ref he's been in there all day! 5! 6! 7!!"

Actually, if it was at 7, we might have another count issue.

That does not need an exception it needs an editorial change to TC in FC in bounds. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why would you need an entire exception for BC violation but only an editorial change for 3 second violation?
[/B][/QUOTE]

It just seems easier to say it that way. In reality there is no difference.

A player shall not remain in the lane for 3 seconds while his/her team is in control in the FC, in bounds...or A player shall not remain in the lane for 3 seconds while his/her team is in control in the front court, except during a throw-in.

Fewer words.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by blindzebra
As I see it, if there is team control during a throw-in you just have a live ball being passed among teammates, and all you'd need is the back court exception if the throw-in comes from the FC.

No, but the touch does end the throw-in.

So, there's TC during the throw-in, the throw-in ends when the ball is touched, so there's no TC until the ball is controlled.

What would be needed is a statement that TC *begins* during a throw-in (or when a live ball is held or dribbled inbounds...). Then we'd just need the BC exception.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

If there were really a player who could, from one side of the lane, recognize a shooter in the opposite corner, go OOB around two screens and get to the shooter before the shot is gone, we've got 1 of 2 things: a shooter that is as slower than Christmas or a defender that could outrun an F16.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 1st, 2005 at 03:00 PM]

So what if there are players who are slow or others who are quick on their feet. Officiate the game to keep it fair and fun.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Wow, there really seems to be a BIG loophole in this. The NCAA kept the T in the book for a very good reason. The defender running OOB to get around a screen. It seems the the NFHS has been pretty short-sighted and removed that. I don't think that a violation is enough to prevent defenders from doing this.

A smart coach will now have his kids purposely run OOB to get around screens set along the end line or side line. Why not? If the official stops the game and calls a violation, who cares? The offense had an advantageous position anyway because the defender was going to be picked off leaving an opponent wide open. Especially, if the defender is beaten and can't get to his opponent who is going to receive a pass for a good shot. So stopping the game hurts the offense.
If the official doesn't call a violation, then the defender gains an advantage in trying to prevent the shot.


Just picture the play in which A1 and A2 set a double screen along the lane line against the end line. A3 is set up in the corner and A4 is swinging the ball around the perimeter to A5 who will get it to A3 for the shot. B1 desperately needs to get past the double screen set by A1 and A2, who MAY NOT STEP OOB, so B1 simply runs OOB and around them to get over to A3 in time to prevent the shot attempt.
This used to be a T on B1. It now appears that the most the official can do is stop the game and award the ball to Team A for an end line throw-in. Not much of a deterrent. How many coaches really want to see their offensive set interrupted for this violation?

Use "advantage/disadvantage" by holding your whistle to see the play through. If the offense loses possession or A1 misses the shot, blow your whistle for a violation on B1 but if A1 scores, and then ignore the violation.

No advantages gained by the defender or in case the offensive player leaves the court for an unauthorized reason, use the same method.

Do remember... there is no time limit on a whistle.