NFHS.ORG has the new rules posted for next season.

They include: State's have option of imposing a mercy rule, top lane spaces remaining empty, official signal for a kicked ball, direct technical on coach for illegal participation of a disqualified player, and basket interference for snapping a movable ring into the ball. They also approved a 10 panel ball.

http://www.nfhs.org/press/basketball_rule_change03.html

Here's the link for those interested in reading the release.

So it's actually the lane spaces nearest the shooter which will remain vacant, not the spaces below the block. I guess they didn't like the NCAA Women's rule.

WOW!!! A mechanic for a kicked ball!!! I wonder which leg we're supposed to use. As long as it's not the middle one, I'm OK with this. ;)

I agree.
 

That 'straight' thing about a foot can be a hard one.

Re: I agree.
 

I'm years ahead of them on this one! :)

Problem is, I had almost broke myself of this habit. :(

I wonder if you make this call too often if you can go blind?

I'm very disappointed that they didn't adopt some form of the NCAA "team control" foul. I think it was a very good change at the college level and would also be good for HS. Just my opinion.

Chuck

Special emphasis on getting the open hand straight up on the kick or you will look like a goose stepping nazi.

I wonder if they brought in this menchanic in advance of the shot clock so we wouldn't have to learn two new mechanics at once?

Just great now I will have to spend the first half of the season lining up the players on the lane correctly.

From the press release:

"Statistical information shows that offensive rebounding has increased in free-throw situations since the switch back to the ball hitting the rim as point of release, rather than the release of the ball by the free-throw shooter."

I've been saying this for years! One year when I was an assistant (the first or second year of the rule change) we usually had the tallest players on the court and had bad free throw shooters, and it never hurt us. The stats made a case for missing the second on purpose, we'd get the rebound so often.

The change is good, but they chose the wrong spaces to leave open. Those spaces in the front, when limited to when the ball hits the rim, are nearly useless. Missed free throws don't kick off to the side at a 90-degree angle. Often they kick at a 45-degree angle right to the shooter's teammate.

Seems kinda ridiculous to me...it's almost like they said "Well, we can't do it EXACTLY like the NCAA women's mechanic, so we'll change it a little bit"...will not change the fact that the best spot to be in will still be held by the offensive team.

Good for officials.
 

Well maybe as a coach you think the space close to the shooter is not that important, but as an official I love it. One less person to keep track of, that is not going to get most rebounds anyway. And with the current restrictions on the FTs, the block space being left open would only create a bigger advantage in my opinion to the defense. The change would be better if they let the players enter the lane on the release.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Apr 24th, 2003 at 10:26 AM]

Re: Good for officials.
 

Quote:

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach The change is good, but they chose the wrong spaces to leave open. Those spaces in the front, when limited to when the ball hits the rim, are nearly useless. Missed free throws don't kick off to the side at a 90-degree angle. Often they kick at a 45-degree angle right to the shooter's teammate.

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge And with the current restrictions on the FTs, the block space being left open would only create a bigger advantage in my opinion to the offense. The change would be better if they let the players enter the lane on the release.

Jrut
Why do you say that the defense is disadvantaged by moving back a space?? I think that the PA coach is dead on right with the ball on rim rule. It is a long way to go for the block player to get any rebounds that come off with any kind of force. They can only get the ones that fall right into their lap. That second position is critical, and if you have it, you can pretty much neutralize the third position. And nobody is getting into that block area when you have to hold for the ball to hit the rim.

If you have a reason that I am missing, please state it. I am not saying you're wrong, but I think that PA coach made a good case for where rebounds go and I am not sure what your reasoning is.

Re: Re: Good for officials.
 

I meant offense. It was a typo on my part.

Peace

I do think that this change will tip the balance somewhat towards the defensive team. Anytime you remove two offensive players from the area, their odds are bound to go up. If they were to have vacated the lower block, it would almost guarantee every rebound for the defense. I'm of the philosophy that the FT rebounds should be close to a 50/50 chance with a slight advantage to the defense. Before, the 3rd/4th defender in the pair of 3rd spaces had to be concerned with blocking out the offensive players above them (the shooter and possibly two more). Now there is only the shooter to worry about. One of them will be free to go aggressively after the ball or sandwhich the offensive player below him.

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

Yer sumpthin.
 

...Only 12".

Dan is completely right.
 

This change was to go toward the Men's rule, not at all the Women's rule. This is a great change for us as officials, two less players to worry about anymore. Now we can focus on the lower positions, especially with the current restrictions on the release. And I will disagree with one thing Mick said, I think the NF is much more inclined to go toward the Men's NCAA side when it comes to rules changes. I think the NF as a whole has aligned themselves with the Men's Rules makers, mainly because not only are the most of the Committee Members men, but that is the most visible game to most people. If you look at the mechanics, rules overall, the Men's games has it's fingerprints all over the place. No different than the NCAA Women's seem to aline themselves with the NBA/WNBA Rules and mechanics.

But that is just how I see it.

Peace

Hmmmm.
 

Rut,
I don't think we disagree.
...But it's you primary. ;)
mick

Understatement of the year!
 

It seems to me that the officials who are working the WNBA have had a large impact on the changes that have been made in the Women's college game.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" :)

Nick & Hawk, I guess there are essentially 3 things you can fiddle with on FT's:
- who stands where
- where in each space you can stand
- when players are allowed to move

Over the last few years NCAA has been doing more than their fair share of fiddling, sometimes (edit to add the mens & womens sides) agreeing and sometimes not. During most of this time the fed has been mostly silent (I think they changed back to moving on the hit instead of release 5 yrs ago?). As Mick & Jeff pointed out the fed's change this yr is to mimic the NCAA men's side in one particular area (who stands where) - and in this particular aspect there is a *huge* difference between the men's & women's side. The fed clearly came down this year on liking the men's way of doing things, IMO. Whether this continues remains to be seen.

BTW, like Rut I also think that the NCAA men's way of lining 'em up is good because it lets you focus better on the players under the basket. None of that silly "box out the shooter" stuff.


[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 25th, 2003 at 12:18 PM]

Re: Yer sumpthin.
 

12"? Make sure that's not a metric ruler, could be 12 cm. :)

Re: Re: Yer sumpthin.
 

That's feeble.

Re: Understatement of the year!
 

Well the same officials that work a high level D1 NCAA Women's schedule, are the same folks that work in the WNBA. Just the way it is.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Yer sumpthin.
 

My apologies, I'l try better next time.

Hooray for the mercy rule! Hope you state adopts one. It makes game management of blowouts much easier.

I hope not!!!
 

I sure as hell hope our state uses good wisdom and passes on this rule. If you need a rule like this to help game management, then you are not qualified in the first place. The reason officials love this rule is the same reason they love the rule in football. It will help them leave a great 5 minutes more than they would before the rule. And just like in Football, officials will not apply the rule properly, because all they will care about is leaving a little early, then implimenting the rule they way it is written.

Peace

What about these?
 

Do you folks think these need to be added as official signals: Vertical clap (Clean Block) or Foul tip sign (Touched Ball)?

Re: Re: Understatement of the year!
 

Ah, I know. That's why I made the statement.

Re: What about these?
 

No. Why?

You give the clean block signal about the time your partner calls a foul. :(

If the play occurs and there's any question, I point to the playerwho touched the ball and signal that the ball was tipped. But I don't see the need for an authorized signal, requiring us to do it.

I complained about the use of these unofficial signals in the NCAA Men's Final Four in another thread. Most people don't seem to care if they are used. I agree with BktBallRef that they can only cause lots of trouble.

Re: I hope not!!!
 

Nothing good happens in a game where a team is winning by more than 40 at halftime. All you get is frustration on the part of the losing team, and the opportunity for hard fouls and poor sportsmanship. No one has any fun (winning team included), and no one learns anything from this type of mismatch. The positives for this rule have nothing to do with getting home early. They have everything to do with ending a bad situation before it gets worse.

Re: Re: I hope not!!!
 

Well Stan, you have a right to your opinion but I disagee with you. You say nothing good comes out of it, and that I totally disagree with. The kids that did not play before, get an opportunity to play the game they watch most of the time. The fouls are not always hard and poor sportsmanlike behavior is not inherient in blowout games. Honestly when the game is more in question, that is the times it can be harder to keep the emotions from getting out of hand. Or a big rivalry which can be that way in a blowout or if the game is nip and tuck. But then again, you live in a state that has this rule, I do not. I hope they keep things the way they are and let these kids play. In the other sports that I officiate that have a mercy rule of some kind is in place to keep kids from getting hurt or ending a game that does not have a time limit. Basketball is not that sport. Playing a little longer is not automatically going to get someone hurt. And if it is, you are not calling fouls are staying on top of possible hot situations.

I have had 20 point games that things were chippy and had 30 point games where everything went smooth and uneventful.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: I hope not!!!
 

You say nothing good comes out of it, and that I totally disagree with. The kids that did not play before, get an opportunity to play the game they watch most of the time.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Rut,

You look at the faces of the children (yes, that's what high school students are) who are on the losing end of a 98-34 game (or 76-14, or 96-17, or 80-8, or 100-34, or 81-14, or 85-25, or 62-17, or 96-20, or 99-24), and you tell me whether they're enjoying the playing time. You don't have to be a mind reader to see from their facial expressions and body language that they're being embarrassed and can't wait for the game to end. By the way, these are actual Detroit Public School League scores from two weeks of girls games last year, the year after the mercy rule was taken away. FYI, the Michigan mercy rule took effect only when a team had a 40-point second half lead.

Not every game is going to be competitive, and lopsided games are inevitable, but at the high school level and below , if the winning coach is classless, the rules should try to minimize the embarassment and humiliation of the losers.

Well Stan..........
 

life is full of disappointment. If you do not want to be humiliated, do not play sports. Because if you play long enough, you will be humiliated on any playing field at one time or another. But you do not get better by ending a game quicker, you learn by still playing in a sport where serious injury is not a factor as it is in other sports. I am not buying your argument on the issue and I will never buy this argument.

It seems to me you have problems in your class system or who gets playoff games or not in your state. We have a 2 class system here and we do not nearly have the type of blowouts that you suggest. We even have Class A school in conferences with Class AA(Big Schools) and they get along fine. And when they happen, they happen on the girl's side. I personally do not think a situation that happens more on the girl's side of the ball is good for all HS sports in general. And we know they will never make a rule for just girl's basketball.

Peace

Re: Well Stan..........
 

I think that there is precedent for carrying different rules when you consider that many states use NCAA women's shot clock rules for girls only. However, I would agree that a girls-only rule is less likely to occur for something like the mercy rule. However, if the 40 point blowouts are rarely happening in boys ball, it is rather a non-issue, wouldn't you agree. It is a de facto girls only rule, because girls ball seems to be having bigger disparities right now.

Don't want the rule, but 40 points seems a decent place to have it if you feel you need it. And it will not be used in the majority of games.

Assigned Spaces
 

Does anyone know if they are going to make players stay in assigned spaces too? I couldn't really tell from the way the wording of the rule read, and we didn't get the official rule, all we got was the commentary on what the rule was going to be. In college women's ball, the second space can only be occupied by offense and the third can only be occupied by defender. I just wondered if Fed was going to make it 4 def. and 3 offense as well?