NCAA Rules that NFHS or State Associations should try out?

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why would you want to reduce the penalty for a technical foul at the high school level?

Technical fouls are supposed to be a deterrent against unsporting conduct, especially at the high school level. That's why a loss-of-ball was included in the penalty for a "T". And it seems that it's almost an annual occurrence to have an NFHS POE issued about having incidents of unsporting conduct reduced. And yet you're proposing a rule that has a chance of promoting or increasing those incidents by reducing the penalties for them? That doesn't make sense to me, Jeff.

Any coach...or player.... with half a brain is just gonna wait until his team has the ball before he goes off on us.

I am one who would b in favor of reducing the T T penalty. Personally I would like to see one shot T like the NBA. Rationale. There are too many officials that think the penalty for a T is so severe ... could be a 4-5 point swing that there threshold is way high and it allows too many antics from coaches, and even some players... If it was one shot and POI you tell the individual that he got your attention, you have penalized it, and they are half way out the door.

We might take care of business earlier and more often. BTW same rationale that swinging elbows went from a T to a violation...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

There are too many officials that think the penalty for a T is so severe ... could be a 4-5 point swing that there threshold is way high and it allows too many antics from coaches, and even some players...

Agree with that...but...

These same officials will always find an excuse not to call a technical foul anyway, no matter what the penalty is. They want to be loved and they just can't understand that just ain't gonna happen. You can be respected, though. And imo coaches really don't respect officials that they can run rough-shod over.

Give up one FT to a bad FT-shooting opponent? You'll be seeing some coaches getting a "T" every single game. It'll be part of their game strategy.

The NFHS had exactly what you're suggesting 50 years ago iirc. They then went to 2FT's and losing the ball because they found that a single FT was no real deterrent to unsporting conduct.

[SoInZebra]

I would like to see team control extended to include when a team has the ball for a throw-in - with appropriate exceptions made to keep the backcourt allowances as is for throw ins

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I'd like if NFHS went ahead and extended the coach's box like NCAA's. In Texas we give the coach's a six-foot box and it's never really enforced unless a coach is giving an official a hard time (at least in these parts).

If the official's arent' enforcing the six-foot box, what makes you think they would enforce the 14-foot box?

IMO, If official's don't have the cajones to do their job, another 8 feet is not going to help.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

On a serious note, by having everyone playing under the same rules/guidelines/regulations, more fair play would be happening in every game as everyone would have an equal chance to win or lose, no matter the level.

One has nothing to do with the other. As long as both teams are playing by the same rules, they both have the same chance to win.

Would identical rules for all be ideal? Perhaps, but maybe not. NFHS has different priorities than the NBA. Hell, baseball doesn't even have the same rules across the board, neither does football. And with basketball, you also add in FIBA just for fun.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that rec leagues will differ on which adaptations they add (running clocks, no press, no free throws, move the FT shooters up, one T is ejection, etc.) to support their different priorities and philosophies.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zebraman

If the official's arent' enforcing the six-foot box, what makes you think they would enforce the 14-foot box?

IMO, If official's don't have the cajones to do their job, another 8 feet is not going to help.

Maybe he's hoping coaches will be more likely to adhere to the 14 foot box without the officials having to do anything.

Sort of like those who advocate bumping up speed limits from 65 to 75 because everyone's driving 75 anyway.

note: I'm almost always in favor of higher speed limits, I just don't use the "because that's what they're doing anyway" argument.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

They care who wins. We don't.

Change the word, "They", to, "You", and you'll have a very short, but hopefully, effective, six word, coaches, and captains, pregame conference. Forget about equipment, and uniforms. Forget about sportsmanship, and the coaching box. Forget about points of emphasis. And definitely forget about the color of the line, "all the way around".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Change the word, "They", to, "You", and you'll have a very short, but hopefully, effective, six word, coaches, and captains, pregame conference. Forget about equipment, and uniforms. Forget about sportsmanship, and the coaching box. Forget about points of emphasis. And definitely forget about the color of the line, "all the way around".

Wouldn't it be cool if they made the OOB line different colors?

"Gentlemen, on that side of the court, the red line is OOB. On the other side, it's the blue line. Except under the baskets, where it'll be the Green line. Welcome to the Rainbow Center."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wouldn't it be cool if they made the OOB line different colors? "Gentlemen, on that side of the court, the red line is OOB. On the other side, it's the blue line. Except under the baskets, where it'll be the Green line."

Post o'the week.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Post o'the week.

I think they should make the OOB line the same color and design as the shoes the teams wear, so you wouldn't be able to tell if a player's foot was on the line.

I also think it should be mandatory to have whoopee cushions on the coach's chairs.

Oh yeah, all hot moms have to check in with the referees prior to tipoff.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're spending way too much time worrying about what coaches, players and even the freaking fans think. Way too much! Who gives a damn what they think? We have completely different goals out there. They care who wins. We don't.

It's our job to ensure that the game is played in a safe, sporting manner. We react to the actions of others. And imo if you don't take any crap from the players and coaches, they will adjust to you in one helluva big hurry. And conversely, if you want to try and reason with coaches and players instead of just simply busting them when they deserve it, you'll be spending one heckuva lot of time and breath trying to convince people who are unconvincable.

Paralysis through analysis.....again. See unsporting conduct---> call unsporting conduct. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, it seems that it's always easier to make up reasons not to call a warranted technical foul than it is to just go ahead and call it.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in making my point. My issue was with rule changes that set up more reason for conflict, confusion and discussion.

I would love the idea of "if I see unsporting it is unsporting", but as I previously stated we've instituted some rules up here that equal accidental action with no intent but because of time and situation are required to be called tech's.

I do think that our job as well as everyone else's in the sport (coaches, fans, AD's, players) as stakeholders is to do things to help further the game. My point was that I didn't want to see rule changes to have more reasons have tech's called, as I didn't see that as positive step forward for building relationships bewteen the games stakeholders or making it clear to kids what constitutes being unsportsmanlike.

I don't consider a kid getting tangled up with the guy he's denying on a inbound the same thing as telling an official he's an a$$hole but by our rules the same penalty must be applied. So now the kid has gotten called for unsportsmanlike behaviour, (that wasn't unportsmanlike on his/her part as all) which in my mind diminishes the meaning of the call and its importance in the kid and coaches mind.

So I don't think lessening the tech penalty so more refs will call it creates a clear understanding of the importance of instilling sportsmanlike behaviour and clearly punishing that which we deem as unsportsmanlike in players or coaches if it becomes another infraction.

I can manage the game and the rule however it needs to, but if we're talking about rule changes in the best interest of the game I don't think more tech's for more reasons, or with less penalty is a good change.

Sorry if that's rambling!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I would love the idea of "if I see unsporting it is unsporting", but as I previously stated we've instituted some rules up here that equal accidental action with no intent but because of time and situation are required to be called tech's.

I don't consider a kid getting tangled up with the guy he's denying on a inbound the same thing as telling an official he's an a$$hole but by our rules the same penalty must be applied. So now the kid has gotten called for unsportsmanlike behaviour, (that wasn't unportsmanlike on his/her part as all) which in my mind diminishes the meaning of the call and its importance in the kid and coaches mind.

Just because your FIBA rules are stoopid and need changing doesn't mean that NFHS high school rules should also be changed. Why should we institute a rule change to fix your problem? That just ain't very logical imo.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just because your FIBA rules are stoopid and need changing doesn't mean that NFHS high school rules should also be changed. Why should we institute a rule change to fix your problem? That just ain't very logical imo.

Very progressive of you. This is 2010, the NFHS is still in the 1990's on many things.

POI is sufficient for NCAA and would be fine at the HS level. HS coaches, players, and fans have a good understanding of the rule since it is frequently observed on TV. They still count toward the foul count(s) and eventually DQ.

The message is still clear that unsporting behavior(s) will be penalized.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

POI is sufficient for NCAA and would be fine at the HS level. HS coaches, players, and fans have a good understanding of the rule since it is frequently observed on TV. They still count toward the foul count(s) and eventually DQ.

The message is still clear that unsporting behavior(s) will be penalized.

I think that the issue is how much penalty. In NCAA the expectation of making FT's is higher. He11, some JV girls teams in HS can't make a FT all game. In such a case, getting the ball again at the division line ends up being the only penalty for the T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think that the issue is how much penalty. In NCAA the expectation of making FT's is higher. He11, some JV girls teams in HS can't make a FT all game. In such a case, getting the ball again at the division line ends up being the only penalty for the T.

Other than half way to DQ, you mean.