Interesting. I am of the philosophy that rebounds on FTs ought to be more like 75-90% favoring the defense. A FT is a free opportunity to score. Don't hit it, the ball should go the other way most of the time.

I would go with 75% as being ideal, for defensive rebounds, and I really think they screwed the pooch by not messing with the lower blocks instead of the upper ones.

Kicked ball mechanic
 

LMAO @ Mark Padgett, Bktballref and mick!!!

Seriously, now...is this really a new mechanic? I have seen this several times in D1 (both men's and women's games), and I honestly thought that it was already part of your 'repertoire'. Were the officials just improvising, or what?

Re: Kicked ball mechanic
 

I can't speak for the College officials but it really is a new mechanic to the NFHS. It hasn't been an approved mechanic since I've been refereeing, which is 7 or 8 years.

For some of you more senior guys, was this an approved mechanic back in the day?

Technically, it's not an official signal. It is, however, probably used by a majority of officials, I would guess. May be why, it will now be an official signal.

Re: Re: Kicked ball mechanic
 

It wasn't a CCA mechanic either, Barry.

And I'm glad. They apparently like the NCAA men's rule, and so do I, and I betcha so will you after a month or so.

It's a good thing!

Dan R,

I don't understand how the new NFHS rule is remotely close to the NCAA Men's rule, given that we are still playing when the ball hits the rim and the first spot for the D is still entirely below the block (unlike NCAA Men's, where they can stand on the block).

Well stated Nick O.
 

I had the same exact thought.

Nick_O,
The fact that the changed rule is now closer to Men's is unquestionable.
mick

True, it is closer
 

I guess I just struggled with the comparison to the NCAA Men's rule, because the gap between the NFHS and NCAA Men's is still pretty wide, it seems, just not quite as wide.

A bit closer. . .
 

in that the upper blocks are clear. But the most significant (from a rebounding perspective) differences remain - position of the lowest player and when players can enter the lane.

Mick, I think that Nick and I are responding to DanR assertion that NF went with the NCAA men's rule. Looking at one aspect of the rule in isolation is not appropriate. Most significant aspects of the rule are nothing like NCAA men.

I would suggest that NCAA women have it right for entering on rim (yet they allow entering on release). The reason they allow the women to step away may be related to the fact that women don't get up to the rim for rebounds, so they need the additional space for the longer rebounds that the men reach just by elevating. However, NCAA men have it right for entering on release - stepping on the block allows a bit better angle to begin with, and they have time to get into the lane and get postioned for the longer rebounds.

NF seems to have decided to use the least compatible of both sides of the rule, by keeping players as low as possible and making them wait for rim.

Re: True, it is closer
 

Nick_O,
You have probably noticed over the years that a Fed rule change takes one of three courses:
<LI>Toward Men
<LI>Toward Women
<LI>Back toward Fed

This one went toward Men. I think Fed does not consider the mentality of High School coaches, players and Officials as being able to take a total jump to a complete NCAA rule, so they do it step-by-step. ;)

mick

Re: A bit closer. . .
 

Hawks Coach,
I agree with your assessment, but if you subscribe to the "step-by-step" method of changing a rule, Fed now has the opportunity to move the lower players onto the block <u>or</u> to move the players up one entire space after they see how the 6-player thing works out.

I am sure they look for flexibility in decision making before taking the next step.

We still have to give them credit for being open to change and improvements.

As for you thinking that Dan asserted that Fed went entirely to the Men's rule, then I offer a "<i>Tsk, tsk!</i>". You know better than that. ;)
mick

From the new Illustrated book:

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/goodness007.gif