|
old discussion revisited
We went through this quite some time ago, but with all the newbies over the past year or two, I thought it might be a good lively topic to go over again. Here it is:
NF rules. The penalty for a technical foul is two shots and possession. The penalty is the same whether the offending team is on offense or on defense. The question is - is the penalty equitable or does it penalize a team more for committing a technical while on offense than on defense? An offensive team loses two free throws and possession but a team on defense didn't have possession in the first place, so do they really "lose" it? The argument in support of the penalty being equal had to do with the theory that on any free throws, the non-shooting team either automatically gets possession if the throws are made or at least has the best chance of getting possession if the last throw is missed, and the technical penalty takes that away. OK guys - the floor is open. |
Quote:
When a team causes any act that is "unfair, unethical, dishonorable or not in the spirit of fair play", they have earned the consequences. |
Hey Mr. Referee, Your Mother Wears Army Boots, Go Ahead, I Dare You ...
Early on, in my middle school coaching days, when I wanted to get a technical to "fire up" my team, I would make sure that I got it when the other team had the ball. Worst case scenario, the other team gets two points due to my strategy. That only lasted a few years, and then, "I saw the light", and became a more sportsmanlike coach.
|
Personally, I don't look at what's fair or not fair. When a rule has been violated, I will penalize accordingly. If you are dumb enough to commit the offense, I will be dumb enough to penalize. ;)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I have no real strong feeling about it either way. I work both rulesets, so I'm used to both. I'd be fine with a change to the NCAA rule (minus all the Class A/Class B silliness), but I'm also fine with it the way it is. |
Quote:
In fact, ... give the non-offending team 4 shots and the ball ... twice. |
Quote:
The point is, shouldn't the penalty for a foul be the same regardless of whether it was committed by the offense or the defense if it was the same foul? |
Mark, they extended the non-shooting stuff from just the player control to the team control because of the turnover that comes with an offensive foul. When you consider the turnover, the penalties even out.
With the technical fouls, though, I'm with Scrappy. I lean towards liking it the way it is, but realize it may just be because that's how I've always done it. If it ain't broke.... |
I believe the NFHS rule is inequitable and I believe "fair" has everything to do with it. I will administer the rule as written but I don't think it is right.
As I too work both the NCAA and NFHS rulesets I believe the NCAA has it right and would hope that the NFHS comes around before too long. Just my opinion. |
I am really tired of hearing about fairness. A technical foul is a major infraction of the rules. For over 100 years the final part of the TF penalty was a free throw awarded to the team that shot the TF free throws. Today the rules are more complex than they were forty or fifty years ago because of this ill-conceived notion that the rules must be fair.
MTD, Sr. |
The Chair Missed Me, But It Still Knocked Down The Peach Basket ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Keeping in mind that my mother is a Kansas native and a graduate of the Univ. of Kansas. Dr. Naismith is the asnwer to a trivia question that very very few people get the right answer. Dr. Naismith was the first men's basketball coach at Kansas (that is why the court at Phogg Allen Fieldhouse is named after Dr. Naismith) and coached two players that went on to be legendary college coaches: Adoph Rupp (Kentucky) and Dr. Phogg Allen (Kansas). The trivia question: Who is the only men's basketball coach at Kansas to have a losing record for his tenure at Kansas? Also Dr. Naismith had doctorates in two areas: medicene and theology. And was a Canadian. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
1898-99 Kansas 7 4 .636 1899-1900 Kansas 3 4 .429 1900-01 Kansas 4 8 .333 1901-02 Kansas 5 7 .417 1902-03 Kansas 7 8 .467 1903-04 Kansas 5 8 .385 1904-05 Kansas 5 6 .455 1905-06 Kansas 12 7 .632 1906-07 Kansas 7 8 .467 Total Kansas 55 60 .478 |
I went home to Washington state and watched my hometown play and was observing the officials because I live in remote AK and don't get the chance to do much. The crew working had an administrative technical, shot the two shots and went to the POI for the throw-in (which was at the endline) rather than division line. In AK all "t's" are two free-throws and ball at the division line so threw me a bit but they also have shot clock for girls too.
Anyone from WA or any other states do the same not trying to hijack the thread but is pertinent to the discussion I think. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I just don't get where this semi-rant about fairness is coming from. If we don't want to hear about fairness, then we should be officiating pro wrestling. |
Scrapper- nice post.
I like the POI rule better in the NCAA. Aside from the fairness issue, I think that is makes it easier for officials to call warranted technical fouls, because the penalty is not as severe. Here is a good example of why POI is more fair, from a BV game I had a few years ago. We are about a minute into the game. Team A is the home team, and has the ball. The score is 2-2. A1 is fouled by B1. It is the first foul of the game. We report the foul, and A gets the ball OOB. They score to take the lead 4-2. B inbounds and is starting to walk the ball up the floor. Horn sounds a few times. We kill the play and go to the table. B1 has the wrong number in the book. Technical foul. Team A makes 2 free throws, and it is now 6-2. A Takes the ball OOB, and hits a three. 9-2. Team A ends up winning by 1. To his credit, the team B coach admitted the error was his fault in the media, but I have never liked the fact that Team A was allowed to score 7 consecutive points without Team B ever even having a possession because of an administrative penalty. |
I would like for at least the administrative T's in the NFHS rule set to go to POI.
It's not beyond the realm of plausibility that a home team scorer would purposely wait until the visiting team has the ball to point out scorebook error. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not that my defense would have helped them. |
Quote:
Could he try to save you, and issue last rites when he couldn't? :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'd like that better as well. Administrivia, while important, is not the game and should be as unobtrusive to the game as possible, IMHO.
|
This would mean that on a book T to start the game, we would still use the jump ball to set the arrow.
|
Or to make things fair
Skip the FT's all together on administrative.
Why should someone get 2 FT's on a bookkeeping error, but the first 6 non shooting fouls of the game are not FT's? Mark them up as a team foul and move on???? |
Quote:
At least that's what Dr. Naismith once told me. ;) |
Umpire Duties: Take The Peaches Out Of The Peach Baskets ..
Quote:
|
Pregame Umpire Duties: Take The Peaches Out Of The Peach Baskets ..
Quote:
|
Quote:
fiasco: Let's read the whole item at the beginning of the NFHS Basketball Rules. THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense. Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule. It is the policy of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee that there be no deviation from the rules unless experimental approval has been granted by the NFHS liaison to the rules committee. THE GAME – Basketball is played by two teams of five players each. The purpose of each team is to throw the ball into its own basket and to prevent the other team from scoring. The ball may be thrown, batted, rolled or dribbled in any direction, subject to restrictions laid down in the following rules. The phrase in red refers to player conduct. Nothing in the Intent and Purpose of the Rules says anything about the rules being fair. Players and teams commit infractions of the rules. When that happens there are penalties that are applied. That means that a team gains an advatage at the expense of its opponent commiting an infraction of the rules. There is nothing in the Intent and Purpose about the rules being fair. MTD, Sr. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11pm. |