Rule Changes for Next Season

[tjones1]

Because the article stated the following: "The mechanics for this signal will be extension of the arm with the fist punched."

Didn't say anything about killing the clock... just wondering.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Because the article stated the following: "The mechanics for this signal will be extension of the arm with the fist punched."

Didn't say anything about killing the clock... just wondering.

I may be mistaken, but the Fed Mechanics chart shows that ALL fouls are initially signalled by the fist in the air, followed by the appropriate signal for the foul committed...much like the PC foul call, it's whistle/fist first, and then the PC signal.

[tjones1]

True, I was just going by what Mary said exactly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tjones1

True, I was just going by what Mary said exactly.

Not quite...

Originally Posted by tjones1

So for the team control foul, you don't come straight up with a fist to stop the clock... just a whistle and a punch?

She said nothing about a whistle! Just stick your arm out and hope they hear your biceps and triceps quiver as you punch!

[johnny1784]

In addition to the point of emphasis on the Proper Procedures for Handling Apparent Concussions that is being emphasized in all NFHS sports rules this year, the Basketball Rules Committee issued four other areas of concern: uniforms, time-outs, intentional fouls and rule/signal enforcement.

[Texas Aggie]

Intentional fouls are going to be a point of emphasis until they either redefine the foul as what the name implies (i.e. intentional) or call it something else. The committee contridicts themselves when they say they want intentional fouls called early and late, and also states that fouling to stop the clock is an acceptable coaching strategy. You can't have it both ways.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Intentional fouls are going to be a point of emphasis until they either redefine the foul as what the name implies (i.e. intentional) or call it something else. The committee contridicts themselves when they say they want intentional fouls called early and late, and also states that fouling to stop the clock is an acceptable coaching strategy. You can't have it both ways.

Fouling to stop the clock is an excellent coaching strategy. Will continue to be for years to come. The cmte. is saying they want consistency and that the officials understand the game of basketball. The need for "purposely" going for the ball in the early stage of a game is extremely low. If it does happen, the official has to have the squirrels to make the call. I have no problem calling and intentional foul prior to the waning minutes of a game. Have done so about 3 times this season, too.

While I will accept the POE, I doubt it will change my game much. I was also the official that had no problem issuing a technical foul for excessively swinging the elbows, when that was the penalty for that infraction, or for issuing a technical foul for purposely leaving the court for a huge advantage (ie. past the point of preventative officiating).

I have no problems with having it both ways.

[ChuckElias]

4-19-14 Clarified that an unsporting foul can be a noncontact technical foul which involves behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

What's being clarified by this? Hasn't this always been the case? I don't understand why this needed to be included in this year's changes.

[Texas Aggie]

In another major change, the exact time observed by the referee
may be placed back on the clock when an obvious mistake is made by the
timer in starting or stopping the clock.
"With this change in Rule 5-10-1, it eliminates the lag
time/reaction time of the clock operator," Struckhoff said. "If the
referee observes the time on the clock when an error occurs, the exact
time will be able to be put back on the clock."

Being focused on the team control mechanic, I missed this the first time. It is an extremely BAD idea for a few reasons. First, while I realize what's written here is not the complete rule, it seems to only apply in cases where the official is actually looking at the clock when he or she blows the whistle. How many times does this actually happen, even late in the game? For me, not very many.

Second, it encourages coaches to nitpik this to their advantage, stressing the officials should put up time even when it isn't warranted. This, along with the tap/try rule with less than half a second could be crucial. The coaches aren't going to care 1)what the rule actually says and 2)what the facts actually are. They are going to have heard this was a rule change and attempt to use it to their advantage. More grief we don't need.

Third, I've witnessed the wrong time being put on the scoreboard, and on many clocks, there isn't a way to set hundreths of a second. Say you blow (and see the clock at) 3.7 left and it stops at 3.3, and the clock can't be reset except to either 3 or 4. What are you going to do?

Finally, while I haven't tested this and would certainly be willing to try and potentially be proven wrong, I have serious doubts that anyone can precisely see when exactly what the clock had when they blew their whistle. Remember, there is SOME time that went off the clock between the time the event that led to the whistle being blown and the actual blowing of the whistle (not to mention the sound waves traveling, but that's likely trivial enough to ignore). Why not correct back to that time, if the official has definite knowledge?

I absolutely hate it when officials start monkeying around with the clock. I know in certain situations it needs to be done, but this rule will cause nothing but trouble.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

First, while I realize what's written here is not the complete rule, it seems to only apply in cases where the official is actually looking at the clock when he or she blows the whistle.

Why do think that's the case? It seems more logical to believe that the way the NFHS detailed an official obtaining definite knowledge before still applies. While one case play described the official looking at the clock WHILE blowing the whistle, the others have the official looking at the clock AFTER blowing the whistle.
The way I take this new rule both will apply and the first time that the official sees on the clock will serve as definite knowledge and the correct time.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Second, it encourages coaches to nitpik this to their advantage, stressing the officials should put up time even when it isn't warranted. This, along with the tap/try rule with less than half a second could be crucial. The coaches aren't going to care 1)what the rule actually says and 2)what the facts actually are. They are going to have heard this was a rule change and attempt to use it to their advantage. More grief we don't need.

Quite true, but coaches already plead for every little thing that will help their team. Will this make it worse? To some degree yes. But remember that you still have discretionary power. Do you give the coaches everything else for which they beg? In my mind the tradeoff is still a positive one as this rule does give us the ability to restore time to what we saw when less than one second comes off, and as you correctly point out there are certain times, particularly with less than one second remaining, when this makes a huge difference. Last season we did not have this power at all. Used wisely, I believe that this will make the NFHS game better. Used indescriminately, this could indeed make a huge mess. I guess that is why they pay us the big bucks.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Third, I've witnessed the wrong time being put on the scoreboard, and on many clocks, there isn't a way to set hundreths of a second. Say you blow (and see the clock at) 3.7 left and it stops at 3.3, and the clock can't be reset except to either 3 or 4. What are you going to do?

Well, how about setting the clock to 4 and having the timer flick it on and off very quickly to run it down to 3.7? I have seen this done and it usually isn't that tough.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Finally, while I haven't tested this and would certainly be willing to try and potentially be proven wrong, I have serious doubts that anyone can precisely see when exactly what the clock had when they blew their whistle.

Remember you don't have to see the clock exactly when you blow the whistle. The definite knowledge starts when you DO see the clock. Just as you can't call a foul that you don't observe, you can't reset the clock to anything that you don't see.

[jeffpea]

[QUOTE=Texas Aggie]Being focused on the team control mechanic, I missed this the first time. It is an extremely BAD idea for a few reasons. First, while I realize what's written here is not the complete rule, it seems to only apply in cases where the official is actually looking at the clock when he or she blows the whistle. How many times does this actually happen, even late in the game? For me, not very many.
QUOTE]

A good non-calling official looks at the game/shot clock immediately after all whistles and when the ball is put in play to make sure the clock stops and starts appropriately. It's not that difficult to train yourself to do this - just a game or two.

[jeffpea]

[QUOTE=Texas Aggie

Second, it encourages coaches to nitpik this to their advantage, stressing the officials should put up time even when it isn't warranted. This, along with the tap/try rule with less than half a second could be crucial. The coaches aren't going to care 1)what the rule actually says and 2)what the facts actually are. They are going to have heard this was a rule change and attempt to use it to their advantage. More grief we don't need.

QUOTE]

What coach doesn't beg and plead for a little "advantage here or there"? This is no different than any other rule or situation. Coaches don't know the exact rule and mis-represent the facts all the time. So what else is new?

[Texas Aggie]

A good non-calling official looks at the game/shot clock immediately after all whistles

I couldn't disagree more. Your focus should be intently on the players.

I agree you should keep an eye on the clock whenever possible, mostly during a transistion, but don't do it "immediately" after a whistle. That's when you'll miss an elbow to the chops.

[Texas Aggie]

I asked to clock operator to start at :15 and run it down

In a playoff game last year (I was watching, not working), they tried to do this exact thing (for 3.6 seconds, I believe), and the idiot clock operator set it for 36 seconds. This was after the operator didn't start the clock properly on an inbounds play, and the officials mistakenly let them replay the entire last 3.6 seconds THREE times.

There was darn near a riot, so you'll see why I'm skeptical about a trial and error approach to clock operations.

I understand this clock business only applies to "definite knowledge," but the rest of my post answers that: how do you know if the clock should read 3.9 or 3.4? I can't agree that an official can have definite knowledge to any real precision.

[refhoops]

I do not beleive this is a big issue if you have clock awareness. Since here in California we have a shot clock, this last season a point of emphasis for me was both shot clock and game clock awareness. Second to last game of season, rivalry game between teams 3 miles apart. Full gym, incredibily load, hard to hear any whissles at end of the game. I am L, home scores with less than 2 seconds to play, I widen out, I am in perfect alignment with clock and visiting coach, he calls a TO with 1.4. I call TO, but nobody hears, home team thinks they have won game, fans storm court. We clear the court, put .8 on clock, explain to home coach that I had definite knowledge and we will put .8 on clock, does not question decision too much, put .8 on clock and play out the game-after 3 timeouts.