We've had a couple of threads discussing changes that some of us would like to see. I mentioned in another thread that a member of the NFHS rules committee asked me (among many others) for input on suggestions for next year's rules changes. Here is the letter he sent to the FED home office. I've removed his name and the name of the recipient. Don't know if anybody is interested or not, just thought I'd throw it up here.

Is it too late to get in another change, I would like to see no long switch in two-person that way it is consistent with 3-person. Long switch also slows down the game. I do like the calling official going table side also.

good list
 

Chuck,
thanks for the info, I agree with most of them..the only two I wouldn't support are 1 and 7...with 7 being the one I would really be against....we have enough timing issues at the Fed level...I don't know that adding any more responsibilities would help LOL

Yes. In order to be included in the questionnaire, the suggestions had to be in by today, Feb 1.

I must be a little slow today but I can't think of many violations I would call on the defense while a shot is in flight. Any examples?

Swinging elbows. Also, when the violation for running OOB was introduced this year, one of the case plays said that if the defense commits the violaton while a try is in the air, you count the basket and award the ball back to the offensive team. This rule change would eliminate that possibility and treat it more like a defensive FT violation.

Thanks, Chuck.

I would agree with the defensive player going OOB being ignored but not with swinging the elbows. What happens next time down when an elbow breaks someones jaw. Something like this might be prevented if the violation is called the first time.

We have been going table-side in 2-person this year. It may be a state experiment (Texas). In reality, the "improving communication" theory, is just that. In 3 person, the calling official goes table side, and has a few seconds to respond to a coach's question during the first free throw. In two person, about all you get to do is report the foul, nod at the coach and get in position, because as new Trail, you have the silent 10 second count, the free throw shooter, the opposite lane, the flight of the ball, not to mention chopping the clock in on a miss.

You nailed it Frank. As trail there is already enough to do, having to contend with a coach in your ear as well is not what I would want added.

Is there any support for changing the boys rule for entering the lane on a FT from "on contact with the rim" to "on the release"?

I, too, am in Texas, and personally like going tableside.

Not much time to communicate when shooting 1 or 1-1, but when shooting 2, there is. I agree it's a lot to handle but I think overall it is better.

Uggggg.. I see I'm posting this too late to get included in the letter...

However, one rule I think should be changed is the double bonus on 10 team fouls in the <b>FIRST</b> half. The purpose for this rule when it was put in place was to discourage a team who is trailing to stop fouling to stop the clock.

#1 - This rule <b>HAS NOT</b> worked as desired. Coaches still have their players foul irregardless of how many team fouls have been committed.

#2 - (and actually more in-line with the reason stated in original rule change proposal) .. Has <b>ANYONE</b> ever seen a team start fouling in the first half to stop the clock and put the other team on the free throw line hoping to get the ball back? I know I haven't.

Add team control to throw-ins and just add the word inbounds to all the count situations would be another one for the list.

More clarification of closely guarded is needed as well:

1. How is 6 feet measured?

2. Does the count drop during a screen?

3. Is path required after the initial LGP is established?


Re-think the leaving the floor violation on the defense. It should either be ignored...without an advantage...or a T...if an advantage is gained, or it is an attempt to stop the other team's advantage.

Under the basket
 

In my experience, the single element that most confounds consistency among partners in high school officiating is that some officials imagine an NBA-style area around, and, in particular, directly under the basket in which a defender may not establish legal guarding position and thus take a charge.

At least in the NBA it's crisp. Heels on the dots, it's a block.

Here's how I personally handle this:

If the defender is <b>directly</b> under the basket AND the offensive player does not show absolutely wanton disregard for the life and limb of the defender AND the offensive player is basically coming DOWN the lane, then it's a no call. The shot will have already been taken, so no effect on the shot. It's incidental contact.

If, however, the dribbler is coming from the side, from any angle at which it's reasonable to think he/she might just go on through to the other side, well, then there's no way for the defender to know which - shot or go through - is going to happen, so setting up under the basket, even behind the plane of the backboard, is perfectly reasonable. If it's a block or a charge, it's a block or a charge.

Is there language somewhere in the rules that addresses this? If there is, I've lost track and would appreciate the info.

Re: Under the basket
 

It's not nearly that simplistic.

Yes, 10.6.1 Situation D (last year's book).

Re: Re: Under the basket
 

What do you mean "it's not nearly that simplistic"? That the defender has to have obtained legal guarding position? Sure, I suppose. It is that simplistic for purposes of illustrating the existence of the real, painted-on dots and not real painted-on dots.

"Yes, 10.6.1 Situation D (last year's book)."

It's NOT in this year's book? What does it say, please?

Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

The NBA rule isn't that simple. There are a lot more factors to consider before it is a block...where did the drive come from, is the primary defender or a secondary defender, is the offensive player backing down or driving? The answers to these make a difference. It's far more complicated that the HS rule (if you call the HS rule as it is meant to be called...without regard to position on the floor).

Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

I meant that the rule is not simply, "If the defender is touching the semi-circle, any contact is a block," which is pretty much how you stated it. It's just not that simple.

1) The Restricted Area applies only to a secondary defender. A primary defender may stand anywhere on the court and draw a charge.

2) The Restricted Area rules do not apply at all if the play begins inside the Lower Defensive Box.

3) The Restricted Area rules do not allow an offensive player to ward off a defender with the free arm, even if the defender is in the RA.

4) The Restricted Area rules do not mandate that any contact must be called a foul. The official has the option to no-call the play if the contact is not severe enough to affect the play.

That's all I meant by "It's not nearly that simplistic." It's just not.

I'm sure it is in this year's book. But my copy of this year's book is in my bag. And I keep last year's book on my desk for reference. So I gave you the case play with last year's citation. The citation may be different in this year's book.

Sorry if my post rubbed you the wrong way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

No problem. As for rubbing - simple means simple. Simplistic is pejorative. I take it it was a slip of the tongue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

Absolutely.

All I'm concerned about is the reality that there is an imaginary 'restricted' area on the high school floor - in the minds of officials AND in the minds of coaches. But it's not the same size in these minds, and it doesn't take into account the matter of which directionthe offensive player is coming from. Among other things.

I find it to be a source of serious inconsistency and contention.

I'm interested in hearing of others' experience with this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

The reference appears to be 10.6.1(C) in this year's Casebook. It does address the 'under the basket' issue by referencing a defender standing BEHIND the plane of the backboard.

I understand the interpretation to say: "There are no dots, so don't be callin' the game as if there were." A noble sentiment, but, as I have noted, I don't see that happening, bigtime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the basket
 

I don't want to get into a war of words, but simplistic means "an instance of oversimplifying; especially : the reduction of a problem to a false simplicity by ignoring complicating factors". (And there is no negative connotation noted in the m-w definition.) This is what your description of the NBA rule did. Over-simplified by ignoring the complicating factors.

It wasn't a slip of the tongue, nor was it pejorative.

Your friendly neighborhood Grammar Guy. :)