Rule change - I've been vindicated, somewhat.

[Mark Padgett]

For years, I've been on my soapbox asking for a rule change in the NF regarding the possession aspect of the technical foul rule. I felt we should give the ball back to the team that had it when the foul was called, just like the NBA. Those of you who have read my ancient threads on this know what I am talking about, so I won't go into all the reasons here.

Guess what? The NCAA made that change for next season. Not only that, they now have two different levels of technicals, resulting in either one or two shots. I never had a problem with the two shots for all technicals, but their new rule on this point is also good, I think.

A typical pattern in the rules is that the NF often (but not always) follows NCAA in rule changes. I hope they make this change at the next opportunity, which would be the 2001-2002 season.

[Hawks Coach]

Mark, you convinced me that this is one of the rules that should be changed. Give the shots and restore the possession. It's kind of a bizarre bonus for an offensive tech to give the other team possession.

I also like the idea of differentiating types of offenses. I would assume that a more administrative offense (an actual technical violation of a rule), like an illegal sub, is a one shot and an unsportsmanlike is two? Or is it back to the floor versus bench distinction? I prefer the former, in that your more severe penalty goes to the unsportmanlike behavior, where human error is rightfully but not excessively penalized.

[Jim Dixon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Padgett:

Guess what? The NCAA made that change for next season. Not only that, they now have two different levels of technicals, resulting in either one or two shots. . . .
A typical pattern in the rules is that the NF often (but not always) follows NCAA in rule changes. I hope they make this change at the next opportunity, which would be the 2001-2002 season.

---

Good for you, Mark. Though some of us did not have such strong feelings about this aspect of the technical foul, we were certainly open to the change. It will be a good adjustment for the NF to follow the NCAA lead on this rule.

Jim

[Jerry Baldwin]

I won't disagree with Mark, but are NF officials smart enough to keep up with this. I have officials who still cannot figure out the difference in a direct or an indirect 'T' to the head coach and how many it take for ejection. It sure is simple to award two free throws for a NF 'T'. I've seen some officials hold a 'T' until the coach's team gets the ball before calling the 'T'. So it will hurt more, this rule change will fix that. I usually give the 'T' once the coach gets my attention and will not make down. I called more player technicals last season then any other time in my 20 years of officiating. Player's attitudes at the HS and JHS level is getting worse each year. I will start this season with a 0 tolerance level for players and I'll give the coaches a lot of rope. It will be interesting to see if the NF rules committee will follow the NCAA's lead.

[Mark Padgett]

Jerry - you make some very good points. I always wondered if the possession aspect of the rule was put in just because the NF thought the majority of officials would find it too hard to also remember what the possession situation was at the time of the whistle. Of course, we have to do this when we have an inadvertant whistle during a scramble.

I have always been of the opinion that the rules committee doesn't give us enough credit for being able to administer the rules properly and sometimes make rules from the standpoint of having this lack of confidence in us.

As an example, I was told in two camps that the jump ball rule was changed to AP primarily because the NF didn't think we did a good job of tossing the ball, not because they thought the rule was more equitible this way.

Frankly, I like the NBA jump ball rule. Start the game with a jump, then that team gets the ball to start the 4th, the other team gets the ball to start the 2nd and 3rd, with all overtimes and tie-ups being a real jump. I think if two opposing players have dual possession, those two should decide who gets the ball - not taking turns like in kindergarten.

[hawk]

Mark, I agree wholeheartedly on jump balls. I've often wondered if it's the first time a playground rule made its way into organized basketball . . . .

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by hawk:
Mark, I agree wholeheartedly on jump balls. I've often wondered if it's the first time a playground rule made its way into organized basketball . . . .

---

No - the first one is players calling their own fouls - believe me, they do it all game long

[David Clausi]

You know, I rather like the current alternating jump ball rule. It is fair! When a ball gets tied up, it is a 50/50 sharing of the ball (even!) - since one team cannot have half the ball, then the teams take turns receiving the ball at any jump ball situation.

A jump ball is definitely unfair when a point guard ties up the ball on a post player who made the mistake of bringing the ball too low. Even though the guard made a terrific defensive play, it is all for nothing because the jump ball is almost certain to go to the center.

You might say that height is just part of the game, but it is still unfair to the guard. On that note, instead of a jump ball, why not have a race to the ball eg. place the ball in the middle of the jump circle and have the two players run from the furthest end of the court. The player who gets there first gets the ball. Then, the guard would be favoured - after all, speed is an important component of the game as well.

I guess the only fair way of handling jump ball situations (in my humble opinion) is to use an A/P rule. This also has the added bonus of speeding up the game.

Cheers,
David