If I could change one rule, it would be....

[Eastshire]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in on late-game fouling.

The one major thing missed in the discussion is that for one year the Fed did change its mind about the strategy. We had the PoE in the early '00s that included the famous any foul after the coach says "Foul 'em" is intentional line. That experiment lasted one year and the PoEs given earlier returned things to their normal state.

Personally, I find the fouling strategy at best poorly conceived and at worst unsportsmanlike. But, fortunately, no one gave me the job of making the rules. What I don't understand is why they don't try to steal the ball instead of just fouling.

My personal approach when the defense is attempting to foul late in the game is to call any contact when the offense is not trying to avoid it. When the offense is trying to avoid being fouled, it has to actually be a foul, i.e. the offensive player must be put at a disadvantage.

I think Rich is right that borderline contact should be favored for a foul in this situation for player safety, but at the same time we must be careful not to but the offensive team at a disadvantage by calling fouls that aren't there.

And yes, the defensive team is getting an advantage by fouling or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

My preferred solution is a change in the rules that would make the strategy less likely to work for the defense. Something is wrong with the rules when the best chance to win is to intentionally break the rules. I think the idea of a triple bonus floated earlier has some merit.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

My personal approach when the defense is attempting to foul late in the game is to call any contact when the offense is not trying to avoid it. When the offense is trying to avoid being fouled, it has to actually be a foul, i.e. the offensive player must be put at a disadvantage.

Life imitates posts again.

Last night, the home team (state tourney team last year and winners of 2 state titles the past 4 years) went into a four corner stall with a 3 point lead at the end of the game while the visiting team (#1 in the state and defending state champions) tried desperately to foul. It took almost a minute for the foul as the team with the ball kept passing it around and the defense got there a bit late. I ignored all the attempted fouls on players that didn't have the ball anymore -- I was certainly watching for intentional or flagrant contact, but that's what it was going to take once the ball was out of the picture.

Home team held on and won by 5 after hitting 2 FTs with 1.8 seconds left. Great game.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Welpe it was meant as a joke as a way to distinguish who's a veteran official & who's a 1st/2nd year official (rookie).

Regardless, it is reality here.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And no one got the joke because it's not just 1st/2nd year officials doing JV games.

Eggsxactly.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The one major thing missed in the discussion is that for one year the Fed did change its mind about the strategy. We had the PoE in the early '00s that included the famous any foul after the coach says "Foul 'em" is intentional line. That experiment lasted one year and the PoEs given earlier returned things to their normal state.

The 2005-06 POE read,

Conversely, a coach who yells, "Foul!" instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is "automatically" an intentional foul – even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The 2005-06 POE read,

Conversely, a coach who yells, "Foul!" instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is "automatically" an intentional foul – even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock.

You're not going back far enough. That's after they changed it back. I need to go through my old books and see if I still have that one.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're not going back far enough. That's after they changed it back. I need to go through my old books and see if I still have that one.

Yes, I did go back far enough. I went back to exactly the point I wanted to and that was to the second POE. I'm well aware that's where they clarified what they had posted in the '04-05 POE. That's why I posted it it.

AND, they didn't change anything. They simply clarified what the had included the year before. It was poorly worded and they had everyone calling INT fouls when the coach yelled "Foul!" That was never the intent of the Rules Committee.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yes, I did go back far enough. I went back to exactly the point I wanted to and that was to the second POE. I'm well aware that's where they clarified what they had posted in the '04-05 POE. That's why I posted it it.

AND, they didn't change anything. They simply clarified what the had included the year before. It was poorly worded and they had everyone calling INT fouls when the coach yelled "Foul!" That was never the intent of the Rules Committee.

My apologizes then. It appeared to me that you were trying to quote the PoE that I was referring to that had been reversed, not the reversing PoE.

I can't speak as to what the intent of the committee was, but I can tell you that we were instructed at the state rules interpretation meeting that year to call INT fouls when the coach yelled "Foul!" If it wasn't their intent, they didn't do a good job of communicating it to my state. So, in my state at least, it changed and changed back because of the PoE.

If they didn't mean to change it, wow, did they ever blow it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're not going back far enough. That's after they changed it back. I need to go through my old books and see if I still have that one.

See POE #5 in the 2000-01 NFHS rule book..."Acts that must be deemed intentional include when coach/player says 'watch, we're going to foul'. " If they said that, we were supposed to call an intentional foul on contact.

They then changed their minds on this a few years later.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See POE #5 in the 2000-01 NFHS rule book..."Acts that must be deemed intentional include when coach/player says 'watch, we're going to foul'. " If they said that, we were supposed to call an intentional foul on contact.

They then changed their minds on this a few years later.

That's the one. Thanks JR.

[BktBallRef]

Yep, looked for it but couldn't find it. I still use the Athletic Rules Study rule and case books as archives but some reason didn't have the 2004 version. I remember the original POE but somehow missed it when i looked back.

Eastshire, our state rep was the chairman of the rules committee during a portion of that time. That's how i know the 2005 POE was actually a clariication of what they had orignially intended. Between the meeting and the printing, it didn't get worded properly.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yep, looked for it but couldn't find it. I still use the Athletic Rules Study rule and case books as archives but some reason didn't have the 2004 version. I remember the original POE but somehow missed it when i looked back.

Eastshire, our state rep was the chairman of the rules committee during a portion of that time. That's how i know the 2005 POE was actually a clariication of what they had orignially intended. Between the meeting and the printing, it didn't get worded properly.

Then you're in a position to know. I just know what happened at my rules meeting and like you said there was a huge disconnect.

[Adam]

Administrative/Team technical fouls (with the possible exception of playing with more than 5 players) would go to POI, while any technical foul charged directly to a player or coach (unsporting) continue to be enforced with two shots and the ball at the division line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Administrative/Team technical fouls (with the possible exception of playing with more than 5 players) go to POI, while any technical foul charged directly to a player or coach (unsporting) continue to be enforced with two shots and the ball at the division line.

I'm confused here. Are you talking about NCAA rules because this certainly isn't the case for NFHS rules. Of course, I know more about making sausage than I know about NCAA rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm confused here. Are you talking about NCAA rules because this certainly isn't the case for NFHS rules.

It's a rule change suggestion.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's a rule change suggestion.

I think Billy has taken to not reading thread titles today.