NCAA Rules that NFHS or State Associations should try out?

[APG]

Originally Posted by chseagle

After going through this season with the Boys' Shot Clock, I got to thinking what NCAA rules should the NFHS or the State Associations use/try out?

One of the things I am on the fence about is the final minute stoppage of clock after made basket, what's everyone's thoughts on this?

I'd be in favor of stopping the clock in the final minute of play. After made baskets, it would stop the new defense from trying illegal tactics to try and stop the clock.

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I'd be in favor of stopping the clock in the final minute of play. After made baskets, it would stop the new defense from trying illegal tactics to try and stop the clock.

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).

How about if Texas just adopt the NCAA box since that's how y'all are enforcing it. I understand the coaches may not allow you to enforce it beyond that, but it's enforced here within a step or two.
Same goes for illegal tactics to stop the clock. What are you seeing? I've only seen one attempt to use a DOG to stop the clock, and my partner rightly ignored it (under 5 seconds remaining).

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How about if Texas just adopt the NCAA box since that's how y'all are enforcing it. I understand the coaches may not allow you to enforce it beyond that, but it's enforced here within a step or two.
Same goes for illegal tactics to stop the clock. What are you seeing? I've only seen one attempt to use a DOG to stop the clock, and my partner rightly ignored it (under 5 seconds remaining).

Curious, how big is the coaching box in your area?

As far as the illegal tactics to stop the clock, it's not a big issue here really. Stopping the clock would just negate all of it. It's not really a big deal to me and as Rich said, we might have to correct the clock a bit under a minute especially at the lower levels. Heck, we see it have to be corrected still at the college level from time to time.

[Ptflea2]

Two thirds of my games this season were the JV or freshman variety with less than respectable volunteers working the table/clock. Coaches would be watching that clock like a hawk if it was close and they were down to make sure they got every tenth of a second they could, but I like the rule.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Curious, how big is the coaching box in your area?

14 ft

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Curious, how big is the coaching box in your area?

As far as the illegal tactics to stop the clock, it's not a big issue here really. Stopping the clock would just negate all of it. It's not really a big deal to me and as Rich said, we might have to correct the clock a bit under a minute especially at the lower levels. Heck, we see it have to be corrected still at the college level from time to time.

I could see states adapting the timing rules for varsity only, but I could never see the NFHS having such a rule. They write the rules for all levels, as they probably should.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by allpurposegamer

curious, how big is the coaching box in your area?

14

[jeffpea]

I'd like to see NFHS adopt these:
stop clock after made FG under 1:00 of 4th qtr.
all players to enter lane on release of FT shot (vs wait to hit rim)
Technical fouls are 2 shots and resume at POI (maintain 2 shots & ball for flagrant/dead-ball contact T's however)

i'll wait a couple of years and then hope that NFHS uses a "restricted area" under the basket for block/charge plays - AND that they eliminate the airborne shooter rule in conjunction.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

I'd like to see NFHS adopt these:
stop clock after made FG under 1:00 of 4th qtr.
all players to enter lane on release of FT shot (vs wait to hit rim)
Technical fouls are 2 shots and resume at POI (maintain 2 shots & ball for flagrant/dead-ball contact T's however)

i'll wait a couple of years and then hope that NFHS uses a "restricted area" under the basket for block/charge plays - AND that they eliminate the airborne shooter rule in conjunction.....

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on the rest, but I absolutely hate the restricted area rule. If there's a defender in the area, take a two foot jump shot for crying out loud.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

Technical fouls are 2 shots and resume at POI (maintain 2 shots & ball for flagrant/dead-ball contact T's however)

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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

[Da Official]

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.

+1

[jeffpea]

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.

the same reason the NFHS changing the penalty for excessive swinging of the elbows from a T to a simple violation.....nobody was calling this play because it was a T - a VERY harsh penalty. By making it a violation - with far less consequences (you simply lose the ball), officials are calling it.

do you know why the NFHS keeps listing unsporting behavior as a POE every year?.....it's because the problem doesn't get any better. the current rule in place now is not working.

you get a T - it's 2 shots for the other team and we get the game moving again....I would wager a lot of money that if this rule changed were implemented, we would see the # of T's called go up - and the quality of the game improve.

[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...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

i'll wait a couple of years and then hope that NFHS uses a "restricted area" under the basket for block/charge plays - AND that they eliminate the airborne shooter rule in conjunction.....

That's a misunderstood NBA rule. The restricted area only applies to "secondary defenders," and that's a concept we don't have to deal with in amateur hoops. With all we have to watch, why add whether a defender was primary or secondary?

Besides, a defender should able to defend any spot on the floor where has has LGP. If you can't obtain LGP on an airborne shooter, then the restricted area isn't necessary.