NCAA Rules that NFHS or State Associations should try out?

[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?...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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 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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[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.

[Pantherdreams]

I'm not really in favour of rule changes or modifications that get more T's called.

We recently (last 2 years) had rules adapted so more things were considered unsportsmanlike behaviour = technical foul. Things like fouls before the ball has left the inbounders hand, any foul from behind or on the side of a player breaking away, hand in the face, yelling at the shooter, all these things are now T's.

In my experience its created a grey area that our local coaches struggle to deal with and as a result have a harder time dealing with us and managing their own kids. We are lucky to have very few jerk coaches in our area and for the most part (in the past) when kids would recieve a tech coaches in our area would deal with the unsportsmanlike behaviour (arguing, swearing, taunting) on the spot and bench the kid for a period of time or in some cases the remainder of the game on their own. They had very stringent team and school policies in regards to kids recieving T's. There was also never any debate over whether the T was deserved.

Now coaches are having to decide whether they feel the T was actually unsportsmanlike or just a unfortunate call based on the rules phrasing and their kids playing hard. Now you've got kids in the with T's you wouldn't normally have playing and in jeporady of getting a second inadvertantly and getting ejected. You have coaches debating that it wasn't unsportsmanlike angles, timing etc. Which obviously filters down to the crowd and players. Not too mention a T noe being a T in the eyes of kids, fans and coaches causing a lot more justification at least in people's minds.

Not that I have an issue with dealing with it personally, it just seems that making a T less meaningful could cause you problems as it has us. That being said we've only got technical fouls, intentional fouls, and personal fouls. So your varying levels of flagrant, technicals, etc may help deal with this issue.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

In my experience its created a grey area that our local coaches struggle to deal with and as a result have a harder time dealing with us and managing their own kids.

Now coaches are having to decide whether they feel the T was actually unsportsmanlike or just a unfortunate call based on the rules phrasing and their kids playing hard. Now you've got kids in the with T's you wouldn't normally have playing and in jeporady of getting a second inadvertantly and getting ejected. You have coaches debating that it wasn't unsportsmanlike angles, timing etc. Which obviously filters down to the crowd and players. Not too mention a T noe being a T in the eyes of kids, fans and coaches causing a lot more justification at least in people's minds.

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.