King for a day

[CMHCoachNRef]

1. Allow referees to correct "wrong team" throw in errors (i.e. Team A awarded the ball for a throw in following a time out when Team B should have been awarded the ball) UNTIL a change of possession. While on the topic of correctable errors, modify the heck out of the current rule. If a team SCORES when an FT should have been awarded, the basket ENDS the time of correcting the error. If FTs are shot at the WRONG BASKET, that is NOT CORRECTABLE (both baskets should be 10' high, both FT lines should be at 15' and wind should not be a factor). If the team that got fouled is not on the ball enough to know that a foul is an FT shooting situation (or the defensive team is not aware in the case of fouling a poor FTer), that is not correctable, either.

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

3. Do not charge a technical foul if a team only returns four players to the court following a time out. If a team wants to play short, let them. Similarly, if a team wishes to play 4v4 when the opponent only has 4 eligible players, let them. Why not allow a team to commit a "sporting act"? Forcing such teams to play with 5 if they have 5 is silly.

4. Change delaying coming back onto the court into a violation to match leaving the court and coming back onto the court.

5. Allow players to enter the lane on release on FTs. I have NEVER understood why there is a differentiation on certain 15 foot shots (FTs) force everyone to stand still until the ball hits, while other 15 foot shots, rebounders can kill each other (within the displacement rules of the game)BEFORE the release.

6. Modify the backcourt violation rules to restore the purpose of the division line (i.e. to prevent a team from delaying the game by using the entire 84/94 foot court instead of just half of it). First of all, eliminate the last-touch-first-touch violation by stating that PLAYER CONTROL must be established in the front court after a ball is tipped by the defense. Secondly, eliminate the throw-in exceptions to the backcourt violation rules. Until a player has BOTH FEET AND THE BALL IN THE FRONT COURT, the player shall be considered to be in the backcourt -- regardless whether the ball is tipped/not tipped on the inbounds pass. As a result, a player who jumps from the frontcourt to the backcourt to catch the ball would NOT be called for an "over and back" violation when, in fact, the BALL has never PASSED the division line.

7. Eliminate the "No long switch" mechanic in three man -- it actually slows the game down. It must have been created by a plump referee not desiring to run.

8. I rather like Nevada's idea on concentric circles for 1s, 2s and 3s. Perhaps a semicircle at 6 feet and another at the International distance. The short to midrange jump shot is almost gone from the game. While backdoor cut lay-ups are a thing of beauty, stopping at the six foot mark for a shot off the glass would be great, too. For FTs three defenders would be allowed inside the 6' arc for rebounding and the shooting team would be allowed two rebounders between the semicircles (FT shooter would be the third rebounder). The other four players would be outside the 3 point arc. Players can step in on release.

9. I like MTD's rule regarding 3 FTs at foul 13 and beyond, except NO bonus free throws until the 8th foul, 2 shots at the 10th foul and 3 shots at the 12th foul.

10. I like JRut's suggestion on the coaching box with a slight modification. Coaches would be able to COACH anywhere from 10' from the division line to the baseline, but there would be a "complaint box" that is 14' wide. If the coach is outside the "complaint box" and argues, automatic "T", but he can COACH anywhere he would like.

11. Continue to compile ALL relevant situations and case plays that are still in effect EACH YEAR in a single document (Case Book). ONLY delete such plays from the case book when a rule change makes them no longer valid. HIGHLIGHT all NEW CASEPLAYS in the Case Book as is done with the Rules Book.

12. Make BillyMac's "Most Misunderstood Rules" mandatory reading for ALL NFHS Head and Assistant Coaches (with an online test following).

13. Mandate fitness tests for referees at each level (BOYS MS, FR, JV, V and GIRLS MS, FR, JV and V -- yes, there is a BIG difference in requirements).

14. Play 2 halves, but give the coaches one extra time out each. Close games would last as long, but most other games would be shortened by a couple minutes.

15. ALL rules (such as the OHSAA 6th quarter in a day technical) MUST be in the NFHS Rules Book OR a NFHS Rules Addendum Book that would have ALL States exceptions listed in it by State.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.

My $.02.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

13. Mandate fitness tests for referees at each level (BOYS MS, FR, JV, V and GIRLS MS, FR, JV and V -- yes, there is a BIG difference in requirements).

Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.

[CMHCoachNRef]

[QUOTE=grunewar;643690]While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.


Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

First of all, we would not be "forcing" the defenders anywhere. At the same time, for anyone who has played basketball, SIX FEET hardly causes an offensive player to sweat!!! The six foot rule also causes much inconsistency since some officials flat out will NOT start a count until a defender is 3 to 4 feet. I would be fine with 4 feet. But, SIX FEET is not going to be consistently called as it is just too far away.

This is not about forcing a defender's position, but it should be about TRULY PLAYING DEFENSE. If you are six feet away, you are not preventing an entry pass, a skip pass or a shot. About the only thing you may be able to prevent is a drive. REMEMBER: closely guarded applies only to the ball, therefore this has no effect on the way helpside or denial defense is taught. As for the length of the game, closely guarded positioning has no bearing in my mind.

As for fitness, I should add that a separate level should exist for FR/JV 2-person and 3-person. In Central Ohio most HS games are 3-man regardless of level. Girls are usually 2-person as are city league and catholic league. Most of the rest are all 3-person.

[26 Year Gap]

6 ft is not a great distance. Spread your arms. That is 6 feet unless you are Wilt's offspring. No need to change that unless there is a shot clock.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

6 ft is not a great distance. Spread your arms. That is 6 feet unless you are Wilt's offspring. No need to change that unless there is a shot clock.

Big difference between "great distance" and "closely guarded". If you are holding the ball with your toes on the top of the circle and the defender is standing with a toe over the free throw line, I still maintain that this is NOT being closely guarded.

Similar to several other rules that do not get tightly called by the book due to the penalty involved -- such as the technical foul for not re-entering the court on a throw-in, I have seen numerous colleagues NOT start a closely guarded count until the defender gets within 3 to 4 feet. Hence, the reason it is a point of emphasis. I maintain, it would be easier to get consistency by going to a three to four foot rule.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Big difference between "great distance" and "closely guarded". If you are holding the ball with your toes on the top of the circle and the defender is standing with a toe over the free throw line, I still maintain that this is NOT being closely guarded.

Similar to several other rules that do not get tightly called by the book due to the penalty involved -- such as the technical foul for not re-entering the court on a throw-in, I have seen numerous colleagues NOT start a closely guarded count until the defender gets within 3 to 4 feet. Hence, the reason it is a point of emphasis. I maintain, it would be easier to get consistency by going to a three to four foot rule.

We also don't always start a 3 second count the instant a player touches the lane line - should we change this to a 1.5 second count?

[Adam]

Coach, I don't see how changing it to 3 or 4 feet would increase consistency. It just gives us a different distance to interpret.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Big difference between "great distance" and "closely guarded". If you are holding the ball with your toes on the top of the circle and the defender is standing with a toe over the free throw line, I still maintain that this is NOT being closely guarded.

Similar to several other rules that do not get tightly called by the book due to the penalty involved -- such as the technical foul for not re-entering the court on a throw-in, I have seen numerous colleagues NOT start a closely guarded count until the defender gets within 3 to 4 feet. Hence, the reason it is a point of emphasis. I maintain, it would be easier to get consistency by going to a three to four foot rule.

6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.

The not entering after a throw-in was actually on the NFHS survey this past spring. Hopefully, they do change the penalty. They did not a few years back because of the penalty for other delays returning to the court, however, that could be covered as an exception or note and leave the T penalty in place for not coming back on the floor after a time-out for example.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.

I agree with this.

I still work a fair amount of 2-person. Last night the winning team went into a four corner with about 3 minutes left, up 20. The defense stayed with the ball handler and I worked harder as the trail in those next two minutes than I did all night. I was frequently in the backcourt getting angles, across the court getting angles, down to the free throw line getting angles. Counting pretty much the entire time.

It drives me crazy watching officials not work closely guarded situations well when they are on ball. Getting good angles and properly counting are part of the gig.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.

The not entering after a throw-in was actually on the NFHS survey this past spring. Hopefully, they do change the penalty. They did not a few years back because of the penalty for other delays returning to the court, however, that could be covered as an exception or note and leave the T penalty in place for not coming back on the floor after a time-out for example.

You are agreeing with my point just coming to a different conclusion. Due to the fact that MANY OFFICIALS do NOT consider "closely guarded" to be at 6 feet, they DO NOT start their count. Then, the next game, we have an official who calls it at 6 feet and "bang" we have inconsistency.

I am one who calls it as the rule states, but DISAGREE with the rule as a matter of logic and experience. MANY disagree with the rule and therefore call it as they (and I) would prefer to see it -- at four feet or being "close" to the ballhandler. This leads to more inconsistencies than we should have.

In our BV game the other night, my partners and I were starting the count (quite visibly, might I add) when appropriate by rule. A coach just about jumped out of his skin when one of my partners called a 5-count on his point guard. I was the lead and did not see that action out top, but the coach did say "well that certainly wasn't closely guarded last Saturday night."

By the way, I would advocate not charging a T for the violating the time out rule as well -- simply allowing them to play with four entil the next substitution opportunity. Playing short should be penalty enough. Of course, ENTERING the court during play (without being beckoned) would still constitute a T as it is now.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

Don't like this at all. As long as officials consistently enforce the six foot guarding rule we have no need for a shot clock. Very good defense can be played at 3-6 feet without requiring over playing.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

6. Modify the backcourt violation rules to restore the purpose of the division line (i.e. to prevent a team from delaying the game by using the entire 84/94 foot court instead of just half of it). First of all, eliminate the last-touch-first-touch violation by stating that PLAYER CONTROL must be established in the front court after a ball is tipped by the defense. Secondly, eliminate the throw-in exceptions to the backcourt violation rules. Until a player has BOTH FEET AND THE BALL IN THE FRONT COURT, the player shall be considered to be in the backcourt -- regardless whether the ball is tipped/not tipped on the inbounds pass. As a result, a player who jumps from the frontcourt to the backcourt to catch the ball would NOT be called for an "over and back" violation when, in fact, the BALL has never PASSED the division line.

I don't see a lot of benefit from this, and it requires some level of judgement. You'd still have a jumping from frontcourt to backcourt violation if the ball is tipped in the frontcourt, then caught in the air by a player who left his frontcourt and landed in the backcourt. Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

8. I rather like Nevada's idea on concentric circles for 1s, 2s and 3s. Perhaps a semicircle at 6 feet and another at the International distance. The short to midrange jump shot is almost gone from the game. While backdoor cut lay-ups are a thing of beauty, stopping at the six foot mark for a shot off the glass would be great, too. For FTs three defenders would be allowed inside the 6' arc for rebounding and the shooting team would be allowed two rebounders between the semicircles (FT shooter would be the third rebounder). The other four players would be outside the 3 point arc. Players can step in on release.

This, IMO, would be a nightmare to officiate. A lot of shots are taken at around six feet with a lot of players in the vicinity when it happens. It's one more line to watch. And rewarding teams for getting good looks at the basket from five feet should be rewarded the same as seven.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

10. I like JRut's suggestion on the coaching box with a slight modification. Coaches would be able to COACH anywhere from 10' from the division line to the baseline, but there would be a "complaint box" that is 14' wide. If the coach is outside the "complaint box" and argues, automatic "T", but he can COACH anywhere he would like.

Penalize a coach when he deserves to be penalized. Arbitrary lines shouldn't rule a coach's conduct.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

5. Allow players to enter the lane on release on FTs. I have NEVER understood why there is a differentiation on certain 15 foot shots (FTs) force everyone to stand still until the ball hits, while other 15 foot shots, rebounders can kill each other (within the displacement rules of the game)BEFORE the release.

14. Play 2 halves, but give the coaches one extra time out each. Close games would last as long, but most other games would be shortened by a couple minutes.

I like these two suggestions. I believe waiting for the ball to hit rather than entering on the release creates incentive to "crash" hard rather than having time to work for position.

Halves work for me, and the extra TO makes up for a loss in coaching time. Let coaches decide when they need the break, and get rid of two last-second shot/hold the ball opportunities per game.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

1. Allow referees to correct "wrong team" throw in errors (i.e. Team A awarded the ball for a throw in following a time out when Team B should have been awarded the ball) UNTIL a change of possession. While on the topic of correctable errors, modify the heck out of the current rule. If a team SCORES when an FT should have been awarded, the basket ENDS the time of correcting the error. If FTs are shot at the WRONG BASKET, that is NOT CORRECTABLE (both baskets should be 10' high, both FT lines should be at 15' and wind should not be a factor). If the team that got fouled is not on the ball enough to know that a foul is an FT shooting situation (or the defensive team is not aware in the case of fouling a poor FTer), that is not correctable, either.

The whole shooting at the wrong basket thing never made sense to me either. If the kid makes the free throw, count it. If he misses, don't give him another try.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

Three feet is pretty close quarters. I'm afraid grunewar is right on this one. Forcing the defense to come in closer is not desirable.

If we ever do adopt a shot clock, I'd prefer to simply do away with the closely guarded count entirely. At the very least strip it down to the current NCAA-W rule.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

3. Do not charge a technical foul if a team only returns four players to the court following a time out. If a team wants to play short, let them. Similarly, if a team wishes to play 4v4 when the opponent only has 4 eligible players, let them. Why not allow a team to commit a "sporting act"? Forcing such teams to play with 5 if they have 5 is silly.

Agreed. If you can't get all your players back on the court after a TO, they wait at the table for the next opportunity to sub. However, still a T if they come running onto the court after the ball is in play.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

4. Change delaying coming back onto the court into a violation to match leaving the court and coming back onto the court.

Agreed. Hope springs eternal on this, the NFHS has recently shown a willingness to acknowledge that not every undesirable behavior is worthy of the nuclear option.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

5. Allow players to enter the lane on release on FTs. I have NEVER understood why there is a differentiation on certain 15 foot shots (FTs) force everyone to stand still until the ball hits, while other 15 foot shots, rebounders can kill each other (within the displacement rules of the game)BEFORE the release.

Why not allow them into the lane once the ball is at the shooter's disposal? I'm not being sarcastic, if the debate is over what magical moment is the right one, why not set it to be at a time that makes officiating free throws easier?

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

6. Modify the backcourt violation rules to restore the purpose of the division line (i.e. to prevent a team from delaying the game by using the entire 84/94 foot court instead of just half of it). First of all, eliminate the last-touch-first-touch violation by stating that PLAYER CONTROL must be established in the front court after a ball is tipped by the defense. Secondly, eliminate the throw-in exceptions to the backcourt violation rules. Until a player has BOTH FEET AND THE BALL IN THE FRONT COURT, the player shall be considered to be in the backcourt -- regardless whether the ball is tipped/not tipped on the inbounds pass. As a result, a player who jumps from the frontcourt to the backcourt to catch the ball would NOT be called for an "over and back" violation when, in fact, the BALL has never PASSED the division line.

I rather like this idea. Empirical evidence (i.e., the sheer number of threads started on this very topic) clearly indicates this is the most difficult rule to understand and apply correctly. As currently written it's got a big "gotcha" factor to it in situations that have nothing to do with the original intent of the rule.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

8. I rather like Nevada's idea on concentric circles for 1s, 2s and 3s. Perhaps a semicircle at 6 feet and another at the International distance. The short to midrange jump shot is almost gone from the game. While backdoor cut lay-ups are a thing of beauty, stopping at the six foot mark for a shot off the glass would be great, too. For FTs three defenders would be allowed inside the 6' arc for rebounding and the shooting team would be allowed two rebounders between the semicircles (FT shooter would be the third rebounder). The other four players would be outside the 3 point arc. Players can step in on release.

It is an interesting idea. But it would then be some other game and not basketball.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

9. I like MTD's rule regarding 3 FTs at foul 13 and beyond, except NO bonus free throws until the 8th foul, 2 shots at the 10th foul and 3 shots at the 12th foul.

Free throws take too long as it is. But the idea of an escalating penalty for team fouls has merit. How about after 12 we award one point and continue to shoot only two?

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

10. I like JRut's suggestion on the coaching box with a slight modification. Coaches would be able to COACH anywhere from 10' from the division line to the baseline, but there would be a "complaint box" that is 14' wide. If the coach is outside the "complaint box" and argues, automatic "T", but he can COACH anywhere he would like.

Two thoughts. I prefer the college rule. The problem is rarely that the coach is too far towards the baseline, it's that the coach is too far towards midcourt. Taking away the box for a T is both juvenile and sometimes creates a more difficult situation because now we have to police it. The "complaint box" idea is just silly.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

11. Continue to compile ALL relevant situations and case plays that are still in effect EACH YEAR in a single document (Case Book). ONLY delete such plays from the case book when a rule change makes them no longer valid. HIGHLIGHT all NEW CASEPLAYS in the Case Book as is done with the Rules Book.

Agreed. In this age of online access, they don't need to print and distribute the entire volume either. They could continue to publish the existing book, which would serve as the Reader's Digest version of the "big book". The big book would be available online.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

12. Make BillyMac's "Most Misunderstood Rules" mandatory reading for ALL NFHS Head and Assistant Coaches (with an online test following).

Lots of states already require coaches to take a rules test. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it's common for coaches to share the answers and never actually "take" the test. My preference would be a proctored exam. It's not like schools don't have the facilities in place to do this.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

13. Mandate fitness tests for referees at each level (BOYS MS, FR, JV, V and GIRLS MS, FR, JV and V -- yes, there is a BIG difference in requirements).

This merits a discussion all its own.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

14. Play 2 halves, but give the coaches one extra time out each. Close games would last as long, but most other games would be shortened by a couple minutes.

The longer I do this, the more I favor just playing halves.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

15. ALL rules (such as the OHSAA 6th quarter in a day technical) MUST be in the NFHS Rules Book OR a NFHS Rules Addendum Book that would have ALL States exceptions listed in it by State.

Too much bother. Too un-American

[26 Year Gap]

I think maybe we [and I include myself] should employ resumption of play procedures more often. Would take too many lost possessions or easy baskets for opponents to have coaches get there teams on the floor in a timely manner after a timeout has run its course.