Specifically it deals with secondary defenders attempting to take a charge. The restricted area doesn't apply when a defender alights to block a shot, an offensive player makes an overt move (leads with foot, wipe outs, etc.), or a play originates in the lower defensive box. As far as primary vs. secondary, the on-ball defender is the primary defender, and everyone else is secondary unless I'm misunderstanding it. It wouldn't really add anything to the process since I figure most of us can do that without thinking. :p

The reason they reduced the penalty at the college level is so officials would be more inclined to actually make the call. I've heard way too many officials say they won't call a T because they feel the punishment is too harsh, and it turns into letting way too much go. Yea, I know those officials need to grow a couple/take care of bidness/etc. But there have been instances where the NFHS has reduced penalties for the very reason of wanting the call to be made more often, and it takes away some of those officials' excuses.

I'm not against changing a T to POI. One thing I might do differently, however, is keeping the penalty for a flagrant T (one T combined with an ejection) the same where there is still a loss of possession.

You're assuming there are such animals?... :D

+1

That's the basic gist. I see three flaws with a restrictive area:

*More unnecessary rulebook venacular. Rule 4 of NFHS would have to add the definition of a "secondary defender," plus Rule 10 would to make clear what charging fouls cannot exist in the area. I'm also curious how you define the primary defender when a forward is double-teamed (or even triple).
*"Who was his man?" Once you've established the the defender had LGP at the point of contact, you have to ask yourself if he was guarding that person the whole time. I doubt we're going to catch that all the time. Why should we care who was guarding whom, anyway? The matchups are not our concern.
*The Big One: The existing rules cover the need. All defenders are entitled to their spot on the floor. If you're looking for LGP, and you're looking for when a shooter becomes airborne, you have all you need to make an accurate ruling.

Anytime a rule change is considered, it's best to ask what someone is trying to accomplish with it. I still don't see what a restrictive area will do that's already covered by the rules.

Rules like restricted area, clock stoppage under a minute, etc., are not for team or game betterment, but to showcase individual talent and for the fans. NFHS is the last true bastion of amateur basketball (NCAA has accepted its role as farm teams for the NBA). For 75% or so of the players there is no realistic next level. Why should we ruin a perfectly good game for the majority to cater to a relatively small minority and fans?

As far as rules changes (not NCAA or anywhere else that I know of), the one I would like to see brought in would be that any baseline throw-in away from your basket you can run the line. All other throw-ins (side; baseline under your basket) would remain spot throws. Certainly save on any argumentation on "was it a spot or a run?"

When is there *ever* an argument on this?

Good question.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

I think that a greater reason for the reluctance of some officials(some-the big dawgs are exempt) might be a concern about negative feedback from their conference officiating coordinators. John Adams may be on the right track in trying to get officials to take some of the yapping out of the college game, but that doesn't mean that the various coordinators are going to follow his aims/directives during the regular season. Until he has some actual real power in that area, it is all still pretty much a big ado about nuthin'. All thunder and no storm. The conference officiating coordinators have to take direction from their respective employers, and if their respective employers want **"communication"(:)) emphasized over confrontation, you just won't see the T's called.

Or to put it in an easier-to-understand way for you, do you really think that that Whiny Dook Dickhead doesn't have any stroke?

Couple that with the fact that D1 college and high school ball are two completely different worlds, with different rules, objectives, standards, etc., I think that you just can't try to apply the same reasoning to enacting certain rules at the different levels.

Jmo.


** "Communication" means that the coach yells and the official listens.

Agree. I had a competitive game this past season where a 3-point basket was made with 7 seconds remaining to close the game to a 1 point deficit, but since they had no timeouts left they couldn't stop the clock and the other team smartly took their time to get to the ball. Even when I started counting when the player stood next to the ball, they didn't need to throw the ball in to win because there was only 4 seconds left. At the varsity level, I have enough confidence in most table crews to stop the clock properly if given some reminders at the beginning of the season.

As for the Texas coaching box, I too think enforcement would improve by either adopting the NFHS 14-foot box or the NCAA 28-foot box. It just seems we've adopted the "as long as they're coaching, they're okay" philosophy as to enforcing the coaching box, partly because of the size of the Texas exception. (What happened to everything's bigger in Texas? :cool: )

Well, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. I think...

While I don't disagree there are many things that differ, they are many dynamics that are very similar between D-1 and high school. Both the NCAA and NFHS make the rules, but it is still the local assignors, hired by the schools and conferences, that affect how those rules are actually enforced. I have a D-3 and juco women's assignor, for example, that wants us to take care of bidness. He has even gone so far as to send out weekly updates as to the number of unsporting T's have been given by his staff, and gladly supports the officials in doing so. As I recall the last count, his staff had handed out 70 T's for the season in his 3 leagues, and the season was not quite over. Compare that to just over 100 for D-1 women's nationwide. However, he is also getting heat from the coaches for directing a staff that doesn't communicate well (as in your definition). So what happens? The staff probably has to become a little more lenient, because that's what the coaches and schools want because they hire the assignor, and thus the officials. The NCAA and NFHS both know this, and since they do not have direct control over how rules are enforced, they do have control over the rules themselves. If they want more T's called, they cannot force supervisors to tell their officials to call more, but they can change the rules to make it easier to call them, and thus, accomplish the same goal. It was the same theory on changing the penalty on excessive swinging of the elbows from a T to a violation - no one wanted to make the call until they changed the rule; then officials actually started making it.

You're right in that there would have to be an added definition in Rule 4 and Rule 10 would have to be modified, but I don't think it would be as drastic a change as you make it sound out to be. The NCAA rule book doesn't read drastically different even with the new definitions this year.

Now who would be the primary defender on a double team, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe it'd be the defender who's LGP was in the path of the player? Perhaps those who use NCAA rules more often could answer that question. Really though, the plays where this issue come to mind are dribble drives or fast breaks where it's easy to determine primary vs. secondary.

I wouldn't expect NFHS to implement any of these rules in the near future. I think if/when NCAA keeps/extends the restricted area, there will be more pressure to do so at the NF level, but that would be down the road. Either way I'm fine with the way the rule is now, but I wouldn't care a bit if it changed.

Everything IS bigger in Texas haha...I'm actually surprised that the 6-foot box has been kept at that (now admittely I haven't been doing this for too long so I don't know what it was before). I agree that having such a small area has made that philosphy a lot more prevelant for better or worse. A coach could literally take two steps and could be at the edge or outside the box! 14/28 feet would make coaching box violations enforced a lot more often.

Both are. The number of primary defenders isn't limited to one. Anyone actively guarding a player is primary defender. A secondary defender is not directly guarding the opponent but the play comes to them (or they set up in a spot to have the play come to them if the primary defender(s) get beat.

Only when there is a violation, and then you get ripped a new one by your assignor because your point to the floor didn't show up on video as crisp as he thought it should, or the thrower was looking away when grabbing the ball from you, or whatever.

Plus you shouldn't have to answer that annoying question everyone should know the answer to--"can I run?"--since the answer is obvious: baseline away yes; everywhere else no.

Not a hill I'm ready to die on, however.

Below is list of rule modifications for 2010 coming in at FIBA level 1 (world championship level). As of 2012 they will be at all FIBA levels this will include high school, middle school and down age class for all ages. What do you think?

Art. 2.2.3 Free-throw lines and restricted areas

The restricted areas shall be the floor rectangle areas marked on the playing court.

The restricted (three-second) area shall be a rectangle (not anymore a trapezoid) as per Diagram 1 below.

Art. 2.2.4 Three-point field goal area

The distance of the three-point line shall be 6,75 m (and not 6,25 m as present).

Art. 2.2.6 Throw-in side lines

The two (2) small lines shall be marked outside the court, on the opposite side of the scorer’s table and the team bench areas, with the outer edge at the distance of 8,325 m from the inside edge of the end lines; in other words, level to the top of the three-point line.

During the last two (2) minutes of the game and of the extra period, following the time-out granted to the team that has been entitled to the possession of the ball from its backcourt, the subsequent throw-in will be taken on the opposite side of the scorer’s table from the “throw-in side line” and not as presently from the centre line extended.

Art. 2.2.7 No-charge semicircles

The no-charge semicircles shall be marked on the playing court, under the baskets. The distance of the inner edge of the semicircles shall be 1,25 m from the centre of the basket (on the floor).

A charging (offensive) foul should never be called if the contact by the offensive player is with the defensive player standing within the no-charge semicircle.

Art. 29 Twenty-four seconds

If the throw-in is to be administered in the backcourt, if required by the respective rules, the 24 second device shall be reset to 24 seconds.

If the throw-in is to be administered in the frontcourt, if required by the respective rules, the 24-second device shall be reset as follows:

- If 14 seconds or more are displayed on the 24-second device at the time the game was stopped, the 24-second device shall not be reset and shall remain the same.

- If 13 seconds or less are displayed on the 24-second device at the time the game was stopped, the 24-second device shall be reset to 14 seconds.

For a clearer visualization of the first four changes above, please refer to the Diagram 1.