Philosophical discussion - should NF and NCAA rules be the same?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree 118%.

As long as you guys don't start agreeing in metric percentages, I'm OK with it.

[Mountaineer]

I think (if I'm not mistaken) that NFHS and NCAA women's are very similar . . . or so I've been told. I think (again, if I'm not mistaken) that Mary Struckoff is over both - so that would make sense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

I think (if I'm not mistaken) that NFHS and NCAA women's are very similar . . . or so I've been told. I think (again, if I'm not mistaken) that Mary Struckoff is over both - so that would make sense.

This would be completely wrong. For one thing the NCAA Women's game does not have a 10 second back court rule and the closely guarded rule does not at all reflect the NF rule. Let us not get into the way Ts are handled and other little interpretations.

I feel that all these levels need to stay different. For one thing, NCAA Men's and NCAA Women's are two different games. This is like comparing Baseball to Softball. The games style is played a little differently and the expectations of each game are different. I would not agree that all levels should be that similar. First of all let us understand the rules of basketball are really not that different anyway. The rules that are different are in many cases very minor and do not come up unless you have a usual situation. Also let us understand that each level has a different set of concerns that you will not see at another level. NCAA games have bigger, faster and stronger players on both sides of the isle. The NF game is about safety and simplicity. If you started adopting NCAA rules, you would confuse the average player or coach and you would not put into account that many players at the NF level are not as talented to do the things that NCAA rules were created for.

Keep the levels separate. I do not think many of us would like to see many NBA rules at the NF level. So why would we want NCAA rules (which are not the same between Men’s and Women’s) when some of those rules would only cause other problems we cannot yet imagine.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you started adopting NCAA rules, you would confuse the average player or coach

Rut - just curious - what NCAA rules do you feel would "confuse" the average HS player?

OK - coaches I can understand, especially when the rule involves counting higher than 10 without them taking their shoes off.

[Adam]

Would it be more convenient? No question. But, as stated, it's a philosophical question, which includes one's position on whether the two should have the same governing authority.

Any time you have two different organizations "in charge" (in this case, NCAA and NFHS), you're guaranteed to have different rules in place.

Some states have different organizations for boys and girls. Iowa, for example, has some rules variations between the two. No, comedians, I'm not talking about half-court girls basketball.

When I left the state, girls were just beginning to jump ball at the start of the game again. They moved the girls up a space on the free throw lane, keeping the bottom space open. The AP arrow always switched as soon as the thrower got the ball for the throw in. Girls coaches had the coaching box, boys coaches did not.

So, bottom line, I'm not comfortable putting the NFHS in charge of college ball, or the NCAA in charge of HS ball, or a third organization such as USA Basketball in charge of both for the sake of clearing up some minor inconveniences. Maybe it's just the federalist in me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

OK - coaches I can understand, especially when the rule involves counting higher than 10 without them taking their shoes off.

I thought that's what assistant coaches were for.

"Robin, come here, I need to use your fingers."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Rut - just curious - what NCAA rules do you feel would "confuse" the average HS player?

OK - coaches I can understand, especially when the rule involves counting higher than 10 without them taking their shoes off.

When I say a rule would confuse, if a coach does not understand the rule, the players will not understand that rule as well or know how to navigate through the game with a particular rule.

For example I believe that a shot clock is usually too taxing for the average player to navigate. Not to say that many players would not be OK with such a rule, but many players cannot run an offense properly and they have all the time in the world. The shot clock only adds to the anxiety for the average player.

Also understand that the T rule is very different at the college level. Men's and Women's sides do have differences, but I think the rule just brings confusion to those that have to apply it. The NF rule is clear and gives a clear punishment as opposed to the NCA rule which you can benefit from getting a T. And also remember before many of the rules we use today, the NCAA used them first.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also understand that the T rule is very different at the college level. Men's and Women's sides do have differences, but I think the rule just brings confusion to those that have to apply it.

I agree. Even with 5 years of NCAA scorekeeping experience, I still get confused from time to time at the differences between direct and indirect technicals - particularly which ones count towards player & team totals - with NCAA rules.

The NF rule is clear and gives a clear punishment as opposed to the NCA rule which you can benefit from getting a T.

I'm not sure I understand this claim. What sort of T gives the team/player against which it's called an advantage?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

What sort of T gives the team/player against which it's called an advantage?

Maybe an excessive time-out in men's rules? You get the T, but sometimes the POI is that you get the ball back.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'm not sure I understand this claim. What sort of T gives the team/player against which it's called an advantage?

In NF if I call a T on your team, you lose the ball and I give FTs to your opponent. In NCAA I can call a T for you and you can get the ball back at the same spot you had it before the T.

Now the reason this is not a problem at the NCAA level in my opinion, is the fact that college coaches have so much control over their programs. Very rarely have a single college player say "boo" to any official during a game because that T might lose a game, might lose a title and lose a job if it happens at the right time. A HS coach is not paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and they are not accountable to as many people. So if a coach has an out of control kid, they cannot just get rid of that kid like a college coach can with one of their players. I think this is a rule that shows why you do POI for all Ts would be OK at the NCAA level, but might be a disaster at the HS level.

Peace

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think many of us would like to see many NBA rules at the NF level.

Persoanlly, I'd like to see a modified form of the NBA "2 fouls under 2 minutes = penalty" rule at the end of each half in NFHS. Would help when a team has only committed 0-4 team fouls up to that point and decides they need ot foul away to get the ball back.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Persoanlly, I'd like to see a modified form of the NBA "2 fouls under 2 minutes = penalty" rule at the end of each half in NFHS. Would help when a team has only committed 0-4 team fouls up to that point and decides they need ot foul away to get the ball back.

Totally agree, Fed. is not into better game management.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Persoanlly, I'd like to see a modified form of the NBA "2 fouls under 2 minutes = penalty" rule at the end of each half in NFHS. Would help when a team has only committed 0-4 team fouls up to that point and decides they need ot foul away to get the ball back.

I understand your point and it has merit, but think of it this way. If a team is trailing late in a close game and they "need" to foul, as long as they're making a play on the ball, they can get more aggressive and you just call the foul even if it happens repeatedly. I don't think we should unduly penalize them for being more aggressive if they played well enough up to that point that they didn't accrue many fouls by imposing shots for fewer than seven fouls in a half. If they're just fouling to stop the clock, call the intentional. I feel this is where a lot of problems stem from - officials being reluctant to call intentionals when they are warranted.

Also, I rarely see teams pull this at the end of the first half, only at the end of the game.

[Adam]

I agree with Mark. Also, teams that haven't fouled and are in the lead often use their fouls strategically. An NBA-style rule would take that away; a benefit for not fouling early gets taken away.