The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 17, 2007, 06:36pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Question We don't need no stinkin' new rules - or do we?

OK - now that the new NFHS rules have been posted for the 2007-2008 season, let's list the rules they SHOULD have changed.

I'll start with this one. Let's eliminate the term "intentional foul" and replace it with a "flagrant level one". The penalty would remain the same. We all know there are many times we call an intentional for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. I don't think there's anything wrong with making this call, but the terminology is confusing. We should go to the NBA rule of having level one and level two flagrants, with level two including ejection. It really wouldn't be a "rule" change, just a "terminology" change.

Others???
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 17, 2007, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,054
Limit a coach to calling a time-out only during a dead ball.

Last edited by Indianaref; Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:13pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 17, 2007, 08:18pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianaref
Limit a coach to calling a time-out only during a dead ball.
You mean you want to give coaches the authority to CALL timeouts???????
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 06:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
You mean you want to give coaches the authority to CALL timeouts???????
Check that! May request a time-out.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 07:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianaref
Limit a coach to calling a time-out only during a dead ball.
iirc, it was on the list but was voted down (and I'm ignoring the "calling" v. "requesting" issue)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 12:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 825
Quote:
I'll start with this one. Let's eliminate the term "intentional foul" and replace it with a "flagrant level one". The penalty would remain the same. We all know there are many times we call an intentional for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. I don't think there's anything wrong with making this call, but the terminology is confusing. We should go to the NBA rule of having level one and level two flagrants, with level two including ejection. It really wouldn't be a "rule" change, just a "terminology" change.
I think this is nuts. There are situations where "intentional fouls" are not flagrant and should not be labeled as such.

I don't necessarily think that NBA rules, and the way officials interpret and call them is something I want high school athletics and/or officials at this level to aspire to.

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.
__________________
When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 12:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 825
oops - I meant PF's not PC's
__________________
When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 12:25pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
I think this is nuts. There are situations where "intentional fouls" are not flagrant and should not be labeled as such.

I don't necessarily think that NBA rules, and the way officials interpret and call them is something I want high school athletics and/or officials at this level to aspire to.

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.
What I was trying to address were the situations in which we call an "intentional" when it really is a flagrant when it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of including ejection.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 12:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 825
Ok, - I understand - but isn't that just a personal foul? I have been to our required state meetings where it has been emphasized that personal fouls can sometimes be violent in nature as far as contact is concerned, but NOT flagrant or intentional. My point is that instead of changing terminology - just to call it appropriately. I don't think that changing terminology is going to change the way excess contact is called. JMO :-)
__________________
When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 12:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 944
How about a rule where the coach is not permitted to speak to the officials?

A long time ago coaches were not permitted to even coach their players during games, only sit on the bench quietly. I saw a copy of a news item where coaches were first permitted to coach during timeouts (might have been in Springfield at the Hall of Fame, don't remember). Ahh, the good old days.
__________________
I couldn't afford a cool signature, so I just got this one.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 01:08pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.
I think the terminology change might actually allow for more calls. By rule, the intentional foul can be called based on the severity of the contact regardless of intent. However, a lot of officials are slow to call this because they get hung up on the word "intentional."
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 01:10pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
Ok, - I understand - but isn't that just a personal foul? I have been to our required state meetings where it has been emphasized that personal fouls can sometimes be violent in nature as far as contact is concerned, but NOT flagrant or intentional. My point is that instead of changing terminology - just to call it appropriately. I don't think that changing terminology is going to change the way excess contact is called. JMO :-)
sometimes, but a foul can also be intentional based solely on the severity.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 825
How about we keep the terminology we already have, but ADD the flagrant level one. That way, a foul could still be "intentional" with the penalty even if the contact is not flagrant in any way.
__________________
When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 01:22pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
So you'd have two different fouls, with two different names, with exactly the same penalty?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2007, 01:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 572
Coach: How can that be an intentional foul? I know both of the shooter's arms are broken, but my player was going for the ball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Socks? We don't need no stinkin socks!!!!!! sm_bbcoach Football 6 Mon Aug 30, 2004 03:54pm
There are no rules and those are the rules. NCAA JeffTheRef Basketball 6 Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1