Team Control Mechanic Not Authorized in Ohio

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You'd think there would be things an airman wouldn't want his NCO to know.

You'd think so. I can confirm this is so. I was "unfriended" shortly after.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by welpe

ironically, i'd rather do away with the pc signal and just use the tc signal for both. The pc signal just feels really awkward.

+1

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Additionally, a PC foul is essentially just a special version of at TC foul. If you apply the same extension for an airborne shooter to the TC foul, every PC foul would also be a TC foul. Just get rid of the PC foul since the only real difference is that it is specifically on the player with the ball but it has no additional consequence.

1) Camron, I agree with you it would be a logical and rational thing to do.

2) I am getting old and forgetful so I do not remember if the NCAA adopted the definition for Team Control Foul (TCF) and changing the penalty from awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team if the foulee's team is not in the bonus and awarding free throws to the foulee if the foulee's team is in the bonus to awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team one year before the NFHS did or if both Rules Committees adopted the definition and penalty in the same year.

That said, when the NFHS adopted the TCF definition the OhioHSAA decided that it would not use the NFHS's the TCF foul signal because it did not want to confuse () the players, coaches (), scorers () and fans (ROFLMAO).

That said (again), I use the TCF signal because I am a curmudgeonly old geezer (just ask my better half and our two sons and my sons will tell you that I am a bald old geezer, ) who agrees with Camron.

3) As I was writing this post I had a third point that I wanted to make but once again, because I am getting old and forgetful I cannot remember what my third point was going to be.

MTD, Sr.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm leary enough...

Maybe 'leery', unless you're this guy:

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Maybe 'leery', unless you're this guy:

I'll have some of what he is having, .

MTD, Sr.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You'd think so. I can confirm this is so. I was "unfriended" shortly after.

Is that like being 'ignored' on here? Unless Tony quotes the guy, that is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Is that like being 'ignored' on here? Unless Tony quotes the guy, that is.

Hmmm. Probably the same thing, actually.

[constable]

Originally Posted by jhc2010

This is from the Ohio High School Official Association. They do not allow their officials to use the punch for a team control foul and require officials to go against the NFHS mechanics manual and go behind the head when calling an illegal screen.

"Several questions have been raised concerning the proper signal for a “team control” foul. There has been no change from the previous years. In Ohio, we will continue to use signal #34 for both TEAM and PLAYER control fouls. We will NOT use signal #35 for TEAM control fouls. Again, there is no change from past years."

http://www.ohsaa.org/officials/Offic...TER%202011.pdf

They go on to say later in the Winter Bulletin they issued today:
"Please adhere to the mechanics as outlined in the NF Officials Manual. One of our major goals for the officiating program is consistency in mechanics throughout the state. There is no place for individual preferences and modifications of the mechanics either by association or conference.

What's up with this?

Any guesses as to the rationale behind this decision?

Sometimes NFHS makes boneheaded decisions regarding mechanics- i.e. trail going table side on FT attempts and I can see an organization wanting to do what is best for the game and their members but this one has me guessing.

Myself, as much as I like the punch for TC fouls, I think it is important to differentiate between a PC and TC foul.

Luckily we are getting into FIBA time now in my area so I get to use their signals for charging fouls by an player with the ball.

[Welpe]

Constable, why do you think it is important to differentiate between the two? Just curious.

[APG]

Originally Posted by constable

Any guesses as to the rationale behind this decision?

Sometimes NFHS makes boneheaded decisions regarding mechanics- i.e. trail going table side on FT attempts and I can see an organization wanting to do what is best for the game and their members but this one has me guessing.

Myself, as much as I like the punch for TC fouls, I think it is important to differentiate between a PC and TC foul.

Luckily we are getting into FIBA time now in my area so I get to use their signals for charging fouls by an player with the ball.

Why is it boneheaded for the trail to go table side on FT attempts? I think it's an excellent mechanic. If a coach has a problem with a call I made, I can deal with it right there and then rather than have my partner deal with that.

Also why do we need to differentiate between player and team control fouls?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why is it boneheaded for the trail to go table side on FT attempts? I think it's an excellent mechanic. If a coach has a problem with a call I made, I can deal with it right there and then rather than have my partner deal with that.

Also why do we need to differentiate between player and team control fouls?

It is not boneheaded at the NCAA and NBA/WNBA level, BUT not at the NFHS level. Why? Coaches at the H.S. level tend to be (Hank Nichols was once asked does a coach have to do to get a TF from him and he responded "when he acts like a jerk.") jerks, and if the T is the one that called the foul that is drawing the ire of the coach directly behind him, there is a very good chance that a TF could follow.

Why, did the NFHS adopt this stupid (yes, I said stupid) mechanic for H.S. games? Mary Struckhoff is an NCAA Div. I Women's and WNBA official. You do the math. I have officiated college basketball for far too many years than I care to remember and I do not have a problem with being in front of the bench, but it is just a stupid idea for the H.S. game.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Regarding my second post (Go to Page 4, 3rd post down; it is a good read.) in this thread, I remember now remember what my third point was. If one peruses the first couple of pages of the NFHS Basketball Rules Book, one will find the page with the names and pictures of the members of the Rules Committee. Check out who the Chairman of the Rules Committee and for which StateHSAA he is an Assistant Commissioner.

[Texas Aggie]

Just get rid of the PC foul

Why? Is it really that hard to know and use 2 signals for 2 different fouls? I don't understand the mindset that because they added the TC foul signal, that means we need to look at see if the PC foul signal is necessary.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Why? Is it really that hard to know and use 2 signals for 2 different fouls? I don't understand the mindset that because they added the TC foul signal, that means we need to look at see if the PC foul signal is necessary.

Why is it needed? When it comes down to it, a PC foul is also a TC foul.

It's like the NFHS football rule on blocking below the waist. What's the point in having clipping, since clipping is blocking below the waist?

[Adam]

Well, what's the point of having "palming," it's just an illegal dribble (or travel).

[SNIPERBBB]

Because a PC foul can occur when there is no TC