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

[zebraman]

Could someone list maybe 3 rules or mechanics from college that absolutely would not work in HS? (and vice versa).

Someone mentioned that some players could not navigate a shot clock, but that is not true because we use a 30-second shot clock for high school girls here in the state of Washington and it is no big deal.

All I'm hearing so far is that the problem is confusion between the different sets of rules. I have not yet heard good arguments for having those differences.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Could someone list maybe 3 rules or mechanics from college that absolutely would not work in HS? (and vice versa).

Someone mentioned that some players could not navigate a shot clock, but that is not true because we use a 30-second shot clock for high school girls here in the state of Washington and it is no big deal.

All I'm hearing so far is that the problem is confusion between the different sets of rules. I have not yet heard good arguments for having those differences.

I think you are approaching this in the wrong way. The issue is not whether college rules would not work or not work. The issue is there are rules that are not appropriate for college aged kids as opposed to HS aged kids. I would say the very same for the NBA and their rules. Recently we could not even agree on language and application of the terminology "Flagrant 1" and "Flagrant 2" fouls and how that would apply to the HS level. Considering that when we have basic college rules some times filter down to the HS ranks, there always seems to be a confusion period to how to apply a simple college rule.

Do we really think the game would be served at the HS level if we moved back the 3 point line? What about the Women's rule that only has closely guarded on a held ball and 3 feet away rather than the NF 6 feet? I can tell you that at least on the Boy's side; we would just have a couple of very good ball handlers just dribbling all over the place. You would not promote passing or actual ball movement, but you would have a dribbler just holding on to the ball. Would you want to just throw out the requirement for giving a doctor's note if a player is unconscious? I realize this is not a big rule, but I do not think I want HS coaches deciding if a kid with a head injury is going to play because they personally think it is a great idea. Or what about the lack of airborne shooter rule that is used on the Men's side? You really want officials making that call? Those might not be the best rules you want to discuss and I am sure you and others might disagree, but there are rules at the college level I would not want to see at the HS level.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

I'm surprised no one hasSnaqs mentioned the purely political aspect - who's going to give up their "authority" on rule-making? Since we are dealing with different organizations, (NFHS, NJCAA, NCAA, NAIA, NBA), with different people and differing philosophies, there are bound to differences. If we tried to combine any of these rule-making bodies, who's going to be the one to have less say or more say on the committee? I'm sure there are a number of people within the NF that don't want any part of the college game. There are probably just as many in the NCAA that don't want to consider kids that play HS or grade school in the rules decisions. So, there will be differences.

At least they haven't changed the rule where the most number of points wins.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the purely political aspect - who's going to give up their "authority" on rule-making? Since we are dealing with different organizations, (NFHS, NJCAA, NCAA, NAIA, NBA), with different people and differing philosophies, there are bound to differences. If we tried to combine any of these rule-making bodies, who's going to be the one to have less say or more say on the committee? I'm sure there are a number of people within the NF that don't want any part of the college game. There are probably just as many in the NCAA that don't want to consider kids that play HS or grade school in the rules decisions. So, there will be differences.

At least they haven't changed the rule where the most number of points wins.

Let us take it a step further. I know many are probably only thinking of what might happen as it relates to basketball. Basketball from what I can tell has more similarities between rules than most sports I am aware of. Football has over 200 differences from NCAA to NF. You really think the NCAA is going to want to throw out all their rules that coaches have spent years trying to "screw" just to make everything similar for HS kids? I do not think so.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let us take it a step further. I know many are probably only thinking of what might happen as it relates to basketball. Basketball from what I can tell has more similarities between rules than most sports I am aware of. Football has over 200 differences from NCAA to NF. You really think the NCAA is going to want to throw out all their rules that coaches have spent years trying to "screw" just to make everything similar for HS kids? I do not think so.

Peace

Exactly. Who's going to be the one to agree to 200 changes for the upcoming season? Or, are both going to agree to 100 changes each?

I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Or my kids' lifetime.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the purely political aspect - who's going to give up their "authority" on rule-making? Since we are dealing with different organizations, (NFHS, NJCAA, NCAA, NAIA, NBA), with different people and differing philosophies, there are bound to differences. If we tried to combine any of these rule-making bodies, who's going to be the one to have less say or more say on the committee? I'm sure there are a number of people within the NF that don't want any part of the college game. There are probably just as many in the NCAA that don't want to consider kids that play HS or grade school in the rules decisions. So, there will be differences.

At least they haven't changed the rule where the most number of points wins.

Ahem: post 28

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ahem: post 28

Oops, sorry. I must've skipped over it because I didn't see any windmills...

Edited for proper credit.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oops, sorry. I must've skipped over it because I didn't see any windmills...

Edited for proper credit.

I feel so taken for granted.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I feel so taken for granted.

I'm really sorry.

Does a cookie help?

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think you are approaching this in the wrong way. The issue is not whether college rules would not work or not work. The issue is there are rules that are not appropriate for college aged kids as opposed to HS aged kids. Do we really think the game would be served at the HS level if we moved back the 3 point line?

Peace

I don't think I'm approaching it the wrong way because I'm just tossing it out there for discussion. That's why my original post was titled, "Philisophical Discussion."

Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I'm not talking about things like shot clocks and court markings. There will always be structual limitations at some gyms. Our HS district playoffs are often played at our only high school that has a 94-foot college court which is no big deal. I'm not talking about doctor's notes for concussions either. I'm talking about the minor differences in game rules (or mechanics even) that really could be changed (by either HS or NCAA) which would not affect the game and would prevent officials from screwing up a rule (or having two remember two or three sets of mechanics).

Just a minor example. Last year, three of our association officials were working a district playoff game. A technical foul is called on a player. Two shots are assessed and then the official (who also does D-2 women's college) went to POI. Yeah, I know there is no excuse for it (and his partners should have talked him out of it even though he is an official that is not much for discussing any of his decisions) but to me it would be no big deal to either make HS T's be 2 shots plus POI or else have college T's be two shots plus ball to opponent and administer at half-court.

And yes, I know it's a lot about politics and neither side would ever budge as long as there are several different people involved in those decisions.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by zebraman

That's why my original post was titled, "Philisophical Discussion."

Is a "Phil i sophical Discussion" a conversation held in Philadelphia?

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Is a "Phil i sophical Discussion" a conversation held in Philadelphia?

When is this board going to include spell check?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Just a minor example. Last year, three of our association officials were working a district playoff game. A technical foul is called on a player. Two shots are assessed and then the official (who also does D-2 women's college) went to POI. Yeah, I know there is no excuse for it (and his partners should have talked him out of it even though he is an official that is not much for discussing any of his decisions)

Was that Lonnie??? For crying out loud, I'll kick his butt for you next time I see him!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I don't think I'm approaching it the wrong way because I'm just tossing it out there for discussion. That's why my original post was titled, "Philosophical Discussion."

Also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I'm not talking about things like shot clocks and court markings. There will always be structual limitations at some gyms. Our HS district playoffs are often played at our only high school that has a 94-foot college court which is no big deal. I'm not talking about doctor's notes for concussions either. I'm talking about the minor differences in game rules (or mechanics even) that really could be changed (by either HS or NCAA) which would not affect the game and would prevent officials from screwing up a rule (or having two remember two or three sets of mechanics).

Here is the thing. All those things you claim is not an issue can be a very big issue. The NCAA does not require many D2 and D3 schools to do things because they do not have the resources as the D1 level.

Since you mentioned it, it would be very difficult to institute replay at the HS level. Most schools do not have the resources. NCAA games have more at stake than a local championship. NCAA games literally have millions of dollars on the line so their rules are going to be more complex for that level. Do you want to leave a big play in the hands of some freshman that does not even know how to use a camera at the HS level?

Originally Posted by zebraman

And yes, I know it's a lot about politics and neither side would ever budge as long as there are several different people involved in those decisions.

I do not know what politics has to do with this. NCAA is a completely different governing body than the NF or the NBA or FIBA. The only people that would be clamoring for this would be officials for the most part. We are the only ones that can work a HS game and a D1 game in the same week. Coaches and players do not have that kind of dog in this fight. And the NCAA is made of entirely coaches that produce their rules.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Many of you know that I officiate football as well.

In the Canadian football scene, there are two rulebooks: one for amateur play and one for professional play (CFL). 99.9% of the football officials in Canada only need to focus on one rulebook. Kids at 6 years old play with the same rules as those at the CIS level (equivalent to NCAA).

In the Ontario basketball scene, high schools and club basketball play with Federation rules. CIS men's play modified NCAA men's rules and CIS women's play with modified FIBA rules. Having done two pre-seasons of CIS basketball, I can tell you that there is considerable time taken to ensure that officials transfer from one level/ruleset to the next. I think now CIS women's might play modified NCAA women's rules.

With every rule, there is the spirit and philosphy behind the rule. Beginning officials working the 10-year olds hear the philosophy and have the on-field experience with the philosophy without having to change to a new ruleset.

This time taken for re-training doesn't exist in Canadian football. I agree that it doesn't take much to learn new rulesets and those moving up to a new level of officiating have already shown aptitude with the philosophies of that next level. However, my observations tell me that the model that Cdn football has (1 ruleset) produces officials that are ready to move up to the next level quicker.

IOW, I think our football officials are better than our basketball officials. Does having one ruleset help? Yes. How much? Dunno.