OK, guys and gals. The HS season is over and now it's time for all of us to put on our thinking caps and make our suggestions for rule changes for next year. I think we can state what changes we would like to see and why, plus guess on what changes (if any) are likely - based on HS following NCAA by a few years.

I'll start it off.

I would like to see PC fouls shot if in the penalty. I have never figured out why the rules treat a foul by an offensive player who has player control differently than one by an offensive player who does not.

However, I think it's likely the NF will change the rule so that no offensive fouls will be shot (unless flagrant or intentional).

Also - I would like to go to POE on technicals. It just seems the logical thing to do.

Also also - I would like them to eliminate the AP arrow and go back to jump balls. Suuuuuure they will. Right after they bring back peach baskets.

OK - your turn.

Don't know if you'll see this one put into high school.When they first put in the 2 shot plus possession rule,the rationale behind it was that unsporting play was increasing,and there was a need for a stiffer penalty to make players and coaches think a little before they took a T.I don't know whether I'd like to see a change,and then maybe see high school coaches start taking the "purpose" T's, like some college coaches do now. Might be OK as long as the 2-and-out and seat-belt rules stay in,though. JMO.

POE or POI? :confused:

A couple of 'em
 

Of course, the famous "coach warming up at the divisional tournament with his players" rule. How about, only players in the book are allowed on the floor to warmup. (no coaches, cheerleaders, managers, parents, mascots, television analysts, etc.) And one I've never figured out. Either get rid of the one-and-one bonus (for the 7th, 8th and 9th fouls??? Why bother?) or the double bonus. One way or another, get rid of one of them. Shot one-and-a-bonus for all fouls after six, or shoot two freethrows for every foul after six. (And why six fouls???)

POE - Point Of Embarrassment

So regular fouls committed by the offense should carry more penalty than those committed by the defense (possession change and FTs vs just FTs), while technical fouls committed by the offense should only carry the same penalty than those committed by the defense? I'm confused...

hopeful rule change
 

I like the experiment that we worked down here in Florida this year and hope to see the Fed accept it nationwide.
On foul shots.....We had no players in the lowest lane space, with the shooter and 2 teammates, and no more than 4 opponents on the line. Basically the Women's NCAA design.
It offered a lot better game IMO. More fast breaks, but a much cleaner game under the basket.

Illinois Experimental Rule
 

I just hope they add the rule we have used for the National Federation for two years. We used a NF Experimental Rule that did not have the 30 seconds after a player is disqualified. Under this rule the substitution had to be done <b>immediately</b>. This eliminated the posturing that would go on with the 30 seconds and kind of giving a mini-timeout for the lack of a better word after a fouled out player was notified. The game kept moving and many officials I know loved it.

Peace

No 'Coaches calling timeout'
 

I hate it. It only brings pain. I try to never give the time out till I have turned and identified the request as coming from the head coach(high school). I am reluctant to turn my head from live action, so this can take a good 3-4 seconds, even more. That's the way it goes. How do I know it isn't the drunk in row 2, or the other coach? I don't. I got burned with that last thought one time, believe it or not.

Re: No 'Coaches calling timeout'
 

I agree. Or at least limit the times they can do this. I had a few situations this year where it was very unclear who was requesting the timeout. A couple of those situations were right before 10 second counts and my back was turned to the coach. I wish they would change this rule, but they will not unfortunately.


Peace

Eliminate AP under most circumstances
 

I would eliminate the use of the AP arrow on those instances where the defense ties up the ball. Reward the defense and make the ball go the other way. Same with shots that stick between the ring and the backboard or come to rest on the flange. Shooter put the ball there, we go the other way.

I would also implement the "team control foul" as per women's NCAA.

As far as further restricting the lane, I'll agree to all the suggestions put forth earlier in the thread if we also go back to letting the players enter the lane on the release of the throw. As things stand right now, rough play isn't exactly a problem on the lane since the FED reverted back to the "has to hit the rim or enter the basket" rule.

Mechanics-wise, I would try to tweak the 2-official switching procedure as outlined by the manual -- eliminate long switches and the switches that seem forced -- like when the trail official calls a foul in the frontcourt, for example.

Rich

Re: Eliminate AP under most circumstances
 

Rich, the NCAA actually implemented this rule about 4 years ago. It was an unmitigated disaster. The rule lasted only one year. There was too much confusion over whether the defense had "forced" the tie-up, or whether the ball was loose and tied-up simultaneously. It was horrible. I'm very glad they got rid of it.

Also, the team control foul is used for both men and women in NCAA.

Chuck

I would like to see something changed on the free throw lane. The way it is now the second position is the best position to get the rebound in my opinion. Let them in on the release or go with the women's college rule.

I do not like the 30 to replace a sub. It should be immediate. Too many coaches in Wisconsin are using this as a timeout.

Rich what did you think of the state tournament?

MJ

Re: No 'Coaches calling timeout'
 

This is my pet peeve as well. I think a compromise would be to allow the coach to request TO during DEAD BALL periods only. Then, I'm not trying to watch a play and crane my neck to see who's yelling TO.

Really, really want some sort of mercy rule for ALL games. We experimented with it in Michigan for a couple years at all levels, and it eliminated some 102-3 games IMO.

Re: A couple of 'em
 

The theory is that, during the normal course of play, it is reasonable to expect that each player will foul once per half. Since there are 6 players on each team, that results in..........wait a minute - that's not right.

OK, I got it. Each team has one substitute per half. That's where you get six...........wait a minute - that's not right either.

Oh yeah, now I remember. There's six letters in "Naismith". No - wait.

OK, I give up.

Agree with elliminate coaches calling for time outs. Ok during dead balls and the clock stopped but NOT when clock running as after a made basket. the latter caused me some problems last year with watching the inbounding team gain bll control and looking for the right coach.

New rule change
 

I'll trot out my perennial suggestion to add the shot clock at the HS varsity level.

True, a mercy rule may help do the same thing, but there are also times when a relatively close game is occurring but there is a stall tactic being used -- which would go away in some instances if a shot clock were being used.

Re: New rule change
 

Jim - with schools cutting class days, laying off teachers and increasing class sizes due to lack of funding, I don't think you'll see a mandate to make them buy shot clocks.

BTW - I don't like any "mercy rules", unless they are just to stop backcourt guarding when the spread gets to a certain point. I don't support running clock due to a point spread because I feel the kids deserve to play the proper time regardless of the score.

Re: Re: New rule change
 

Mark,
I both like and dislike the "mercy rule".
Positives: Kids on the losing end of a lopsided score aren't standing around being humiliated for any longer than needed. Less than sportsmanlike coaches are not given the freedom to run up huge scores.
Negatives: Kids do not get to play 32 minutes of "real" ball.
I don't like the rule as presently written. It could be "tweaked" to make it different, or coaches could do the right thing, not run up scores, and we wouldn't have to worry. :p

I would like to see the rules regarding out of bounds plays to mirror the NCAA. All reaching through the out of bounds plane is not allowed. It is a pain to have to decide if the ball has been released for the throw in or not under Fed rules. I don't think the AP should be changed. If you rewarded the defense for tying up the ball it would turn all rebounding situations where the ball is brought down into a "hack-fest". I wouldn't have any problems with adjusting the free throw rules. I don't think there should be a mercy rule for varsity ball, but should be for all lower levels. Maybe institute an officials mercy rule where we have the option of letting the coaches finish the game as officials and we coach. This would be allowed twice during the season so I caution you as officials to not use this trump card too early!!!!

Chuck -- I remember the NCAA experiment now. You're right, it was a disaster trying to determine if there was team control when the ball was tied up.

At the NCAA level, they should just go back to the jump ball. Even varsity boys wouldn't be a big deal jumping every held ball. At lower levels and for varsity girls it would be a disaster.

As far as other changes I would make -- I would eliminate quarters and play 16:00 halves. I know some states already do that. I would also eliminate the coach-calling-timeouts, but that's been mentioned already.

I didn't watch much of the tournament. I'm not eligible for postseason since I just moved here (and I won't be eligible for at least 3 more years).

Rich

Just my two cents. I'd like to see:

1) POI on technicals.
2) Team control foul.
3) Coach calling TO only with dead ball and clock stopped.
4) Players may enter on the release during FTs. I don't care what changes they make to the number or positioning of players along the lane to make this work. But waiting for the shot to hit stinks.


Things that would be nice, but I don't really care that much:
1) Mercy rule.
2) Halves, instead of quarters.
3) Shot clock.

NCAA should eliminate the possession arrow. Most games would still have only 3 or 4 jump balls anyway.

Just my thoughts.

Chuck

Why halves instead of quarters? What advantage? Or just personal preference?

quarters vs. halves
 

There are a couple reasons I enjoy working halves instead of quarters. First, there are generally two fewer TO's taken during the game. Since there's no "mandatory" TO at the 8:00 mark, if you're in a good flow, it just continues. In MA, we make up for that by giving each team one extra TO per game. But a coach rarely uses all his TOs and it's even rarer for both coaches to use all their TOs. So, in almost every game, it cuts down on the TO stoppages.

Second, it eliminates two "last second shot" situations from every game. Not that it's a huge issue in the sport, but you don't have to communicate who has the last shot every 8 minutes. Removes two chances for error from the game.

I guess that's about it. Other than, of course, it's just what I'm used to now. :)

Chuck

My rants/changes needed http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

Only put into POEs what people are willing to call. I’m sick of seeing hand checks, forearms in the back, and moving screens (contact) that are not called. Not called because someone thinks it does not meet the “Tower Philosophy.” Yes, they are not moving towards the basket because the hand/arm is stopping them. The repeated off ball use of the hand or arm in the back to stop a players movement is wrong. The book should just come out and say that if it is not called, the ref is in the wrong, period.

If we are going to quote/use the “Tower Philosophy” make it part of the rules book and case book.

Think about all the aspects of situations before you write something about it. One case in point is the change to the elbow rule this year. Good change but I have seen too many times this year where the intentional throwing of the elbow, with no contact, is either not call or is call a violation. Why, because the explanation of the change does not cover situations other than rebounding or clearing an area.

What is the call when the ball is released on an inbounds pass directly to the court and the defender reaches across the line and hits it? How long before the NF addresses the situation in a case book play? We have a case book situation where A1 and A2 are both OOB, and A1 throws to A2, B1 reaches across ant hits the ball and it is a T. Why can’t we have a ruling on a direct pass?

How about the old one foot in and one foot OOB on a block question? How about some guidance on it?

Offer a combined rules book and case book. Have a rule and then have a case play(s) right after the rule. Give it a 2 or 3 year trial to see if it sells.

Allow pre game dunks. So what if a kid dunks before the game? I always look at this as being a spiteful NCAA based rule. “Boys and girls, we are going to give you the dunk back during the game but you still can’t do it before the game - because we say so!”

Do away with the one and one. Shoot 2 shots on all non shooting fouls 7 and over. Even think about 3 shots at 11 and above. Maybe coaches will start teaching defense.

Now where is my medication?

I like this one... I have always felt the same way... show the rule, show an example...

This one is there for safety both for the players and the equipment. Imagine waiting for a rim to be replaced before you can start your game because some clown was fooling around and bent it. At least in the game the dunk would be under some control, in warmups...well... you know how kids are...

Rule change:
Make the "jump-stop" illegal. IMO, the only reason it's legal is the semantics of how the rule involving the end of the dribble is written. It think it goes against the spirit of the traveling rule.

I also agree with getting rid of the quarter system. Two 16 minute halves would give the game a better flow.

POE's:
Traveling! Watch a game at the HS or college level and notice how many travels are let go. Especially the one preceding a break away dunk. Happens entirely too much.

Hanging on the rim. We have let the whole idea of "he was under me" go way too far. We let kids hang on the rim all the time now. It's got to stop.

A couple of FIBA rules that NFHS should look at trying:
Substitutions only allowed before the first free throw.
After a violation, the team that violates is not permitted to make a substitution unless the team throwing the ball in also makes a substitution.
Bonus penalty -- two shots starting on 8th foul of the half.
No bonus on team offensive.

Re: Re: New rule change
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

BTW - I don't like any "mercy rules", unless they are just to stop backcourt guarding when the spread gets to a certain point. I don't support running clock due to a point spread because I feel the kids deserve to play the proper time regardless of the score.

I know of no Michigan official, athletic director or coach who isn't begging for a return of the mercy rule (running clock in the second half after a team gets a 40-pt. lead). Neither the winning team nor the losing team has any fun or learns anything in a blowout of this magnitude.

Re: Re: Re: New rule change
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stan-MI

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: BTW - I don't like any "mercy rules", unless they are just to stop backcourt guarding when the spread gets to a certain point. I don't support running clock due to a point spread because I feel the kids deserve to play the proper time regardless of the score. I know of no Michigan official, athletic director or coach who isn't begging for a return of the mercy rule (running clock in the second half after a team gets a 40-pt. lead). Neither the winning team nor the losing team has any fun or learns anything in a blowout of this magnitude.

I agree with you Stan and I'm from Michigan. I believe that officials from other states who hav't seen/used the mercy rule underestimate it's usefullness. Does the "Walkerville" fiasco from last fall ring a bell?

I'm okay with the jump stop, but it fits into your POE.

Far too often, a legal jump stop is called a travel, and a travel is ignored as a jump stop. (Not that I've ever had either of those happen to me.)

What we need is somewhat simplified and explained version in the POE - and then we need to get refs to read those.

It has come to my attention.....
 

....that the NF is considering allowing basketballs with 10 panels to be used in HS play next season!!! WOW!!! Is there no end to their madness?????

Now this may really be nit-picky but I hate the mechanic that is in place between quarters. Where the referee is at mid-court and the umpire is at the free throw line of the direction you'll be heading.

I think it makes more sense for both officials to be standing on the free throw line. It is much easier to notify the teams of the warning horn this way.

I'm not sure what a 10 panel ball will do for the game. Maybe the ball makers need these changes, like a few years ago they said all the ball need the NFHS logo on it, that way schools need to keep buying new balls.

MJ

We have used a ten panel ball in practice a few times. The kids have all told me that it is a lot easier to handle, especially for some of my smaller freshman guards. It has also been very durable, maintains it shape well. I don't know how much it would help at the high school level, but I think it would be a big help at the junior high level.