NCAA Rules that NFHS or State Associations should try out?

[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

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

As far as primary vs. secondary, the on-ball defender is the primary defender, and everyone else is secondary unless I'm misunderstanding it.

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.

[Anchor]

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?"

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Anchor

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

When is there *ever* an argument on this?

Good question.

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

When is there *ever* an argument on this?

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.

[eyezen]

I would be an advocate for having the clock stop under a minute. Seems counter intuitive but it would help speed up the last minute of some games under certain scenarios where it would preclude the need to take a TO or worse TOs plural for solely getting the clock stopped. The rest would take about the same. I cant see where it would take longer that would be of any great consequence.

Originally Posted by Anchor

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. "

Please explain as it pertains to the bolded part?

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Now who would be the primary defender on a double team, I'm not exactly sure.

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.

[APG]

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 agree with stopping the clock under a minute in the 4th. I'd also like to see players in the lane allowed to enter on the release. As far a technical fouls, I don't really care either way.

As far as the restricted area goes, I wouldn't be surprised if we see it sometime in the future. The NBA has had it for a while, NCAA added it this year (I think it'll be expanded and properly marked in the future), FIBA is going to it soon (insert FIBA joke here )...I'd have no problem if it were implemented at the high school level, but I'd much rather deal with implementing a shot clock first.

[chseagle]

Concerning the idea of stopping the clock under a minute of play after a made basket, how many table crews really put all their attention into the game?

Also there is a bit of lag time between hearing a whistle/seeing the signal & the clock operator stopping the clock.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Concerning the idea of stopping the clock under a minute of play after a made basket, how many table crews really put all their attention into the game?

Just you, Champ.