The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   NFHS Basketball Rules Committee (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/33639-nfhs-basketball-rules-committee.html)

tjones1 Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:24pm
NFHS Basketball Rules Committee
 
The committee meets Sunday (4/15). Ideas or predictions as to the new changes?

Adam Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:28pm
I'll predict the score.
Coaches 5 : Officials 2

Junker Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:41pm
What changes are proposed for this year? I'm sure they've been posted, but I don't really recall what was on the table.

tjones1 Fri Apr 13, 2007 03:01pm
Or...
 
Inside information?

Adam Fri Apr 13, 2007 03:13pm
I don't know that anything listed here was "on the table" so much as it was just a bunch of ideas spawned by questions from a steroid-enhanced squirrel posing as a D1 ref.

blindzebra Sat Apr 14, 2007 04:09pm
I'm betting on the punch signal for all control fouls...player and team.

I'm betting team control during a throw-in, with the word inbounds added to the 3 second, 10 second back court and closely guarded rules.

jkjenning Sat Apr 14, 2007 04:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindzebra
...with the word inbounds added to the 3 second, 10 second back court and closely guarded rules.
:confused: <!verbage>

blindzebra Sat Apr 14, 2007 04:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkjenning
:confused: <!verbage>
That is needed if you have team control during a throw-in, otherwise you could have 3 seconds while the ball is OOB, or the 10 second count would begin before the throw-in ends.;)

Adam Sat Apr 14, 2007 04:37pm
I don't think it would be needed for the 3 second or 10 second counts. Three seconds requires team control in the front court, which is defined as in bounds. Ten seconds requires team control in the back court, which is defined as in bounds.

blindzebra Sat Apr 14, 2007 04:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I don't think it would be needed for the 3 second or 10 second counts. Three seconds requires team control in the front court, which is defined as in bounds. Ten seconds requires team control in the back court, which is defined as in bounds.

Actually the definition only uses the words endline and division line, and says nothing about the sidelines, so yes, for clarity sake, the word inbounds should be stated.

Zoochy Sat Apr 14, 2007 08:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I don't think it would be needed for the 3 second or 10 second counts. Three seconds requires team control in the front court, which is defined as in bounds. Ten seconds requires team control in the back court, which is defined as in bounds.
I do believe the NCAA rules have '3 seconds' as an exception for Throw-ins.

Adam Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy
I do believe the NCAA rules have '3 seconds' as an exception for Throw-ins.
Perhaps, but if they do, it's a redundancy (assuming the 3 second rule is otherwise worded exactly the same as it is in NFHS).
editing: Okay, this is incorrect based on my drawn out post below this.

Adam Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindzebra
Actually the definition only uses the words endline and division line, and says nothing about the sidelines, so yes, for clarity sake, the word inbounds should be stated.
Let's see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 9-8
A player shall not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of a ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 9-7-1
A player shall not remain for three seconds... while the ball is in control of his/her team in his/her frontcourt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 4-35
Art. 1. The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where the player is touchingthe floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out of bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-poin field-goal line.
Art. 2. When a player is touching the backcourt, out of bounds or the three-point line, the player is located in backcourt, out of bounds, or inside the three-point line, respectively.
Art. 3. The location of an airborne player....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 4-4
Art. 1. A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the backcourt if either the ball or the player is touching the backcourt.
Art. 2. A ball which is in contact with a player is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.
I maintain that the 10 second violation would still not apply during a throwin even if team control does, because the ball does not get BC status until either it or the player touching it touches the BC. This would not be happening on a throwin.

If you define a throwin as having team control, then you would need to start the 10 second count once the inbounds pass touched the floor in the BC, or once it was tipped by a player from either team in the throwin team's BC.

Adding "in bounds" to the 10 second violation definition would do nothing to change that, however, so the definition would need to be tweaked further to prevent that.

I will concede that the 3 second count would need to start during a throwin (if an offensive player was in the lane) if team control is added; based strictly on the phrase in red above.

This could be rectified by adding "or out of bounds" to article 2. As article 2 is worded, the ball has front court status during a throwin no matter where the throwin is spotted. Adding team control to a throwin would also require an exception to the backcourt rule unless the phrase "or out of bounds" is added to 4-4-2.

blindzebra Sun Apr 15, 2007 01:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Let's see.




I maintain that the 10 second violation would still not apply during a throwin even if team control does, because the ball does not get BC status until either it or the player touching it touches the BC. This would not be happening on a throwin.

If you define a throwin as having team control, then you would need to start the 10 second count once the inbounds pass touched the floor in the BC, or once it was tipped by a player from either team in the throwin team's BC.

Adding "in bounds" to the 10 second violation definition would do nothing to change that, however, so the definition would need to be tweaked further to prevent that.

I will concede that the 3 second count would need to start during a throwin (if an offensive player was in the lane) if team control is added; based strictly on the phrase in red above.

This could be rectified by adding "or out of bounds" to article 2. As article 2 is worded, the ball has front court status during a throwin no matter where the throwin is spotted. Adding team control to a throwin would also require an exception to the backcourt rule unless the phrase "or out of bounds" is added to 4-4-2.
The one you forgot, that would still make things unclear:

4 SECTION 13 COURT AREAS

ART. 1 . . . The frontcourt of a team consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.

ART. 2 . . . The backcourt of a team consists of the rest of the court, including the entire division line and the opponent's basket and inbounds part of the opponent's backboard.

Nevadaref Sun Apr 15, 2007 01:32am
Sorry boys, but you are having a pointless discussion. Those issues are NOT on the list of proposed changes.

But feel free to continue anyway! ;)

ChuckElias Sun Apr 15, 2007 08:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Sorry boys, but you are having a pointless discussion. Those issues are NOT on the list of proposed changes.
No, but several of the proposals relate to adding team control to a throw-in. The 10-second and 3-second rules could need revision if one of those proposals passes.

Personally, I think that we should not change the definition of team control. If you really want to have team control fouls during throw-ins, we should expand the defintion of team control fouls, adding "common fouls during a throw-in". JMO.

26 Year Gap Sun Apr 15, 2007 08:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
No, but several of the proposals relate to adding team control to a throw-in. The 10-second and 3-second rules could need revision if one of those proposals passes.

Personally, I think that we should not change the definition of team control. If you really want to have team control fouls during throw-ins, we should expand the defintion of team control fouls, adding "common fouls during a throw-in". JMO.
:eek: <iiiiiii>

TRef21 Mon Apr 16, 2007 02:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
No, but several of the proposals relate to adding team control to a throw-in. The 10-second and 3-second rules could need revision if one of those proposals passes.

Personally, I think that we should not change the definition of team control. If you really want to have team control fouls during throw-ins, we should expand the defintion of team control fouls, adding "common fouls during a throw-in". JMO.
hey chuck how would they need revision?

jkjenning Mon Apr 16, 2007 02:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRef21
...how would they need revision?
That has been discussed extensively during this thread:

If you added team control during a throwin, then you could have, by definition, a 3-second violation before the 5-second count ever ends.

For the 10-second count, it would have to start as soon as the ball obtained BC status since TC was established as soon as the ball was given to the thrower (who, by current defition, is considered to be in the FC during the throwin but exceptions already exist for throwins to the BC).

Adam Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkjenning
For the 10-second count, it would have to start as soon as the ball obtained BC status since TC was established as soon as the ball was given to the thrower (who, by current defition, is considered to be in the FC during the throwin but exceptions already exist for throwins to the BC).
There is no exception required currently for this, as a backcourt violation requires team control in the front court. Since there's no TC on a throwin, the exception isn't required. Nor is it there, because the "exception" refers to the team not in control. If you add team control to a throwin, this "exception" will not apply. So, in this situation, the throwin team will not be able to jump from FC, catch the ball in the air, and land in the BC on a throwin.

Secondly, if a throwin team inbounds the ball to a teammate in the BC, it would be a BC violation by rule since there is team control in the FC by definitions.

Also, if they go with Chuck's idea, it would have to be worded in a way that extended the TC foul to cover the time between a tip on a throwin pass until a player from either team controlled the ball. If they don't want a break in applicability, that is.

Junker Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:54am
Along these lines....I was at a college camp this weekend and one of the major mechanics changes they are implimenting next season is the calling official going to the C position every time. I'm not sure if I like it. I didn't catch the entire explanation so if any of you know more I'd like to hear it.

Rich Mon Apr 16, 2007 09:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
Along these lines....I was at a college camp this weekend and one of the major mechanics changes they are implimenting next season is the calling official going to the C position every time. I'm not sure if I like it. I didn't catch the entire explanation so if any of you know more I'd like to hear it.
As long as it's C position tableside, I'd be fine with it.

rockyroad Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
Along these lines....I was at a college camp this weekend and one of the major mechanics changes they are implimenting next season is the calling official going to the C position every time. I'm not sure if I like it. I didn't catch the entire explanation so if any of you know more I'd like to hear it.
I believe that is a Men's experimental mechanic only, and as such will only be used in exhibition games and certain pre-season tournaments, but is not something that will be implemented across the board next season...at least, that's what I've been told!

eyezen Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
As long as it's C position tableside, I'd be fine with it.
How would that work...lead tableside calls non shooting foul on low block, goes to report and stays C tableside ???? So who's inbounding the ball on the endline? And where does the T go?

M&M Guy Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkjenning
That has been discussed extensively during this thread:

If you added team control during a throwin, then you could have, by definition, a 3-second violation before the 5-second count ever ends.

For the 10-second count, it would have to start as soon as the ball obtained BC status since TC was established as soon as the ball was given to the thrower (who, by current defition, is considered to be in the FC during the throwin but exceptions already exist for throwins to the BC).
I'm not sure this is the case. On a throw-in, the player is OOB, not in the front court, even if they are next to the basket. The front court is the <B>inbounds</B> portion of the court. So, once the player is handed the ball for a throw-in, there would be team control, but not team control in the front court. Therefore, no exception is necessary.

jkjenning Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
... So, in this situation, the throwin team will not be able to jump from FC, catch the ball in the air, and land in the BC on a throwin.

Secondly, if a throwin team inbounds the ball to a teammate in the BC, it would be a BC violation by rule since there is team control in the FC by definitions.

Also, if they go with Chuck's idea, it would have to be worded in a way that extended the TC foul to cover the time between a tip on a throwin pass until a player from either team controlled the ball. If they don't want a break in applicability, that is.
Enlightening - thanks.

Adam Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I'm not sure this is the case. On a throw-in, the player is OOB, not in the front court, even if they are next to the basket. The front court is the <B>inbounds</B> portion of the court. So, once the player is handed the ball for a throw-in, there would be team control, but not team control in the front court. Therefore, no exception is necessary.
I thought so, too, but rule 4-4 indicates otherewise. It flat out states, if the ball (or player) is not touching the backcourt, the ball has FC status. Furthermore, 4-13 defines the BC and says nothing about in bounds or out of bounds.

M&M Guy Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I thought so, too, but rule 4-4 indicates otherewise. It flat out states, if the ball (or player) is not touching the backcourt, the ball has FC status. Furthermore, 4-13 defines the BC and says nothing about in bounds or out of bounds.
Frontcourt and backcourt status (statuses, stati, ???) are all inbounds. The court is described in Rule 1, while the definitions of front court and backcourt are mentioned in 4-13. So, when a player is OOB, they are not in the front or backcourt, they are off the court.

So, if your second statement is correct, with team control on a throw-in, any throw-in after a basket would be an automatic backcourt violation every time, right?

Texas Aggie Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:09pm
Quote:
calling official going to the C position every time
That was the original 3 man mechanic back in the day. Then, C was always opposite the table. However, rotation schemes could be a nightmare. I've seen some at camps look like chinese fire drills.

Adam Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Frontcourt and backcourt status (statuses, stati, ???) are all inbounds. The court is described in Rule 1, while the definitions of front court and backcourt are mentioned in 4-13. So, when a player is OOB, they are not in the front or backcourt, they are off the court.

So, if your second statement is correct, with team control on a throw-in, any throw-in after a basket would be an automatic backcourt violation every time, right?
I didn't check Rule 1, but I was looking for a definition of the playing court. What can I say? :)
Now, that said, the answer to your question is yes unless rule 1 defines it as you say it does; in which case the answer is no. ;)
Now, consider this scenario:
1. A has throwin along their FC sideline. (Team control established)
2. A1 releases ball where it goes into the back court after a)bouncing in FC, b)being tipped by A2. (FC status achieved by ball while TC is already ongoing.)
3. A3 retrieves ball in the backcourt.

If team control is established during a throwin, then it's a violation in both a and b.

jalons Mon Apr 16, 2007 01:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
Along these lines....I was at a college camp this weekend and one of the major mechanics changes they are implimenting next season is the calling official going to the C position every time. I'm not sure if I like it. I didn't catch the entire explanation so if any of you know more I'd like to hear it.

I believe it was Jim Bain who brought this up during his speech on Saturday. He said the calling official would go opposite the table (as was done in the past), whether it be C or T. The reasoning he gave was that coaches were taking away from the concentration of the calling official with their questioning and criticism. Mr. Bain made no reference to the rule being used on an experimental basis nor did he mention exhibition games (unless I missed that part).

On a side note, none of the higher level officials at the camp seems real thrilled about it.

Junker Mon Apr 16, 2007 01:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalons
I believe it was Jim Bain who brought this up during his speech on Saturday. He said the calling official would go opposite the table (as was done in the past), whether it be C or T. The reasoning he gave was that coaches were taking away from the concentration of the calling official with their questioning and criticism. Mr. Bain made no reference to the rule being used on an experimental basis nor did he mention exhibition games (unless I missed that part).

On a side note, none of the higher level officials at the camp seems real thrilled about it.
I didn't know you were there. Did we meet? I had a pretty good camp although as usual, I worked too many games. How was it for you?

jalons Mon Apr 16, 2007 02:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
I didn't know you were there. Did we meet? I had a pretty good camp although as usual, I worked too many games. How was it for you?

I was there all weekend. We spoke briefly at the end of camp, while we were packing our bags in the room with the sewing machines. If only the officials' rooms were as nice as the courts were. :(

I worked 8 games, there was at least five people in our group at all times, and we had the younger kids for all of our games, so it wasn't bad. I got lots of positive feedback and received some good advice on a couple little things. It was well worth the time and effort.

M&M Guy Mon Apr 16, 2007 02:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I didn't check Rule 1, but I was looking for a definition of the playing court. What can I say? :)
Now, that said, the answer to your question is yes unless rule 1 defines it as you say it does; in which case the answer is no. ;)
Now, consider this scenario:
1. A has throwin along their FC sideline. (Team control established)
2. A1 releases ball where it goes into the back court after a)bouncing in FC, b)being tipped by A2. (FC status achieved by ball while TC is already ongoing.)
3. A3 retrieves ball in the backcourt.

If team control is established during a throwin, then it's a violation in both a and b.
Well, since NCAA has team control during a throw-in, I'm using their rules as a basis. In both your a) and b) examples, it would not be a violation, due to NCAA 7-6-4, which states, "When the throw-in spot is adjacent to a front court boundary line, the throw in team may cause the ball to go in the back court." This is the same wording in 9-12-4, which deals with back court violations and penalties.

I believe the intent of this exception is to make the throw-in situations the same in both NFHS and NCAA, except for allowing a team control foul to be called during a throw-in.

Junker Tue Apr 17, 2007 07:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalons
I was there all weekend. We spoke briefly at the end of camp, while we were packing our bags in the room with the sewing machines. If only the officials' rooms were as nice as the courts were. :(

I worked 8 games, there was at least five people in our group at all times, and we had the younger kids for all of our games, so it wasn't bad. I got lots of positive feedback and received some good advice on a couple little things. It was well worth the time and effort.
You should have let me know who you were. I didn't make the connection. Usually they have Thom's camp at Drake so the facilities are a little better. I'm not sure why we went to C.R. I'm guessing to appease the officials that have been driving into Des Moines for so long. Do you work for Thom? If so, which side? Maybe we'll get assigned together sometime.

jkjenning Tue Apr 17, 2007 08:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
Usually they have Thom's camp at Drake
My mother-in-law lives within a mile of Drake; quite a few of the homes in her neighborhood have been purchased by Drake over the past several years and we keep hoping hers will be absorbed... tends to be a bit of a violent neighborhood from time-to-time. I remember driving to her house one year to find that the streets had been barricaded off in a pattern to prevent a drive straight through the neighborhood - seemed surreal.

Junker Tue Apr 17, 2007 08:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkjenning
My mother-in-law lives within a mile of Drake; quite a few of the homes in her neighborhood have been purchased by Drake over the past several years and we keep hoping hers will be absorbed... tends to be a bit of a violent neighborhood from time-to-time. I remember driving to her house one year to find that the streets had been barricaded off in a pattern to prevent a drive straight through the neighborhood - seemed surreal.
It is an interesting neighborhood for a college. I've heard rumblings that they want to do a lot of renewal around there and update things, but I'm not sure how far that has gone. I'm not that closeley affiliated with the area right now. My niece has been accepted there and will attend beginning next fall. I toured the campus with her and was very impressed.

Jimgolf Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
I've seen some at camps look like chinese fire drills.
I think we need to come up with a new analogy here, Mr. Imus.

jalons Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junker
You should have let me know who you were. I didn't make the connection. Usually they have Thom's camp at Drake so the facilities are a little better. I'm not sure why we went to C.R. I'm guessing to appease the officials that have been driving into Des Moines for so long. Do you work for Thom? If so, which side? Maybe we'll get assigned together sometime.

Drake would be a great place to have a camp if they only needed four courts and didn't have to use the small ones in the Knapp Center.

So far I have only worked high school ball in four seasons. I hope to get hired on for next season and eventually move to the higher levels. I received some great feedback from the evaluators and I'm hoping to get the email or phone call before next season. Until then, I'm just going to worry about the things I can control.

eg-italy Tue Apr 17, 2007 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Frontcourt and backcourt status (statuses, stati, ???) are all inbounds. The court is described in Rule 1, while the definitions of front court and backcourt are mentioned in 4-13. So, when a player is OOB, they are not in the front or backcourt, they are off the court.
Just two annotations, in order of importance.

(1) In Latin, the plural of "status" is "status" (fourth declension, masculine)

(2) In FIBA the ball has attained front court status when there is a throw-in from a position adjacent to the front court (throw-ins from the division line are an exception).

Ciao

M&M Guy Tue Apr 17, 2007 03:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eg-italy
Just two annotations, in order of importance.

(1) In Latin, the plural of "status" is "status" (fourth declension, masculine)

(2) In FIBA the ball has attained front court status when there is a throw-in from a position adjacent to the front court (throw-ins from the division line are an exception).

Ciao
You've got the order of importance correct. ;)

Is there also team control on a throw-in in FIBA?

Thanks!

eg-italy Tue Apr 17, 2007 04:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
You've got the order of importance correct. ;)
I knew that :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Is there also team control on a throw-in in FIBA?
Yes, there is.

Ciao

M&M Guy Tue Apr 17, 2007 04:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eg-italy
I knew that :rolleyes:
Of course you know we have an image to uphold on this forum about FIBA rules... :D

Since there is team control, and a throw-in is considered front court if adjacent to a front court boundary line, would it be a violation for the throw-in to go into the back court?

eg-italy Tue Apr 17, 2007 04:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Since there is team control, and a throw-in is considered front court if adjacent to a front court boundary line, would it be a violation for the throw-in to go into the back court?
Yes, it's a back court violation. Indeed good officials have the habit of telling the player whether the throw-in is in the front court, in case of doubt, before handing them the ball. Of course, being a front court throw-in is determined by the original spot, it doesn't matter if the player steps in the back court during the throw-in (players can move along the line for a global distance of 1 meter in either direction). Oh, sorry, 1 meter is slightly more than 3 ft. :D

I'd very much prefer the NCAA way for this situation: team control, but possibility to pass in the back court.

Ciao

Grail Wed Apr 25, 2007 01:45pm
Anyone hear what was decided at the meeting?

truerookie Wed Apr 25, 2007 03:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grail
Anyone hear what was decided at the meeting?
I attended a camp where a local high school coach (Kickapoo High School Springfield, Missouri) sits on the NFHS committee.

This is the feedback that was provided.

They are shorten the disqualification of a player from 30 sec to 20 sec. The first horn will be 5 sec into the replace time. To speed up the game.

They will not add team control during Throw-ins.

It was one other I cannot remember what it was.

tjones1 Wed Apr 25, 2007 08:27pm
Seems like if they wanted to speed things up they would have added team control during a throw-in. Maybe they are saving that for next year. ;)

26 Year Gap Wed Apr 25, 2007 08:34pm
Or add another delay warning, which is when the teammates of the FT shooter go individually to slap his or her hand after the first FT whether or not it is made. It is not a huddle, but it seems longer than one.

BktBallRef Wed Apr 25, 2007 09:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap
Or add another delay warning, which is when the teammates of the FT shooter go individually to slap his or her hand after the first FT whether or not it is made. It is not a huddle, but it seems longer than one.
That's already a delay of game warning. No huddle is required.

26 Year Gap Wed Apr 25, 2007 09:31pm
Do you see many warnings issued for that? Or is it a plumbing issue?
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...s/mban865l.jpg


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1