Rule change time again

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is the reason why this should not change. If officials cannot get this right, why do you want such a vital part of reporting to be change? If it was optional, I would not use it. The NBA used it because they have numbers larger than 5. There is no need for this at the HS level.

I have always wondered - how does the NBA differentiate the number "8" from the number "53" with its two-hand reporting?

Maybe it speaks to my mental state, but it's one of the things about NBA mechanics I've always been perplexed by...

[Adam]

You mean if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I have always wondered - how does the NBA differentiate the number "8" from the number "53" with its two-hand reporting?

Maybe it speaks to my mental state, but it's one of the things about NBA mechanics I've always been perplexed by...

I don't know if they still do it, since I haven't watched a National Basketball Entertainment game in a while, but here's how they used to do it: when reporting a single digit number with both hands (such as "8"), instead of their fingers pointing up, they would point each hand in toward the other so their palms would be facing their chest and their hands would be at a 90 degree angle to the floor.

I hope you were able to follow that.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by socalreff

The primary reason they changed the rule in NCAA was that officials were too inconsistent with their counts.

Huh? Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet somehow "fixes" the issue of inconsistent counting? How do you get from one to the other?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Yup.........forgot about walk and talk. I know that's a no no around our area but everyone seems to be doing it.

That was also my thought on two hand reporting. On the high school and lower level games mistakes could easily be made as scorers aren't as experienced as college.

My experience has been that "lower level" scorekeepers don't have problems reading the official's signaled numbers, they have problems with paying attention. Either they're busy texting, chatting with the person running the clock, or heads down recording the foul before you get there to report it.

But when you report digits serially, with some scorekeepers I'm never really certain if they got that the foul was on white 14, or whether they might have given the foul to white 4, because they spaced off the first digit.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Huh? Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet somehow "fixes" the issue of inconsistent counting? How do you get from one to the other?

No, but not requiring them to count during a dribble reduces the number of times that they have strain themselves by counting to 5. Wonder how they manage to administer throw-ins? Hmmmmm.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

with some scorekeepers I'm never really certain if they got that the foul was on white 14, or whether they might have given the foul to white 4, because they spaced off the first digit.

So say "fourteen" instead of "one-four".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No, but not requiring them to count during a dribble reduces the number of times that they have strain themselves by counting to 5. Wonder how they manage to administer throw-ins? Hmmmmm.

Gee, and I always thought they removed it just because the shot clock was so short. Silly me. But at least I know to whom I should defer judgment....

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So say "fourteen" instead of "one-four".

I do. And it usually works very well. But it happens just often enough that I end up having to deal with a "the book is all messed up" complaint that I'm never willing to trust them entirely.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Gee, and I always thought they removed it just because the shot clock was so short. Silly me. But at least I know to whom I should defer judgment....

I can see that if you've got a short shot clock, you don't need a closely guarded rule as much to force the action. But the argument that officials are too inconsistent in their counts as a primary reason to remove just one of several counts, AND shorten the distance to three feet doesn't make sense to me.

I don't see coaches teaching defenders to get within three feet. And the players only get quicker as you go up the ladders. Do they get many closely guarded counts in NCAAW? Maybe on traps or after the dribbler picks up her dribble?

Either way, I think the proposed rule change makes NO sense for HS ball. Frankly it seems like somebody just wants to be more like college, without really thinking about why.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Do they get many closely guarded counts in NCAAW?

No.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Either way, I think the proposed rule change makes NO sense for HS ball. Frankly it seems like somebody just wants to be more like college, without really thinking about why.

Ding ding ding ding ding!
We have a winner.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Either way, I think the proposed rule change makes NO sense for HS ball. Frankly it seems like somebody just wants to be more like college, without really thinking about why.

I think that many of the Women's Basketball/NBA Mechanics and rules are being pushed by those that work that game or have ties to that game. Just because they work in those settings does not mean it will work in the HS setting. I am so tired of other Women's basketball always trying to bring their crap to ever level.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

But then signaling 22 would look like air quotes. AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

Isn't this the new "over the back" signal?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

But then signaling 22 would look like air quotes. AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

Are you sure that his guy is not "Doing The Mouse"?

http://tvparty.com/bgifs12/soupyheader05.jpg