Coaching box restriction after a T

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Fascinating discussion here. I like what JRutledge started here. Instead of officiating based on what we think the rule should be, we officiate on how the rule is currently written and lobby for rule changes. Speaking of lobbying, is there a process (or a lobbyist) for the officiating community to the NFHS Basketball Board to propose rule changes like these? Imho, the perspective of those of us who apply the rules to the game (and actually read the rule book every year) is important and needs to be on the table.

Actually, in many cases, we officiate what the rule should be instead of what is written until they change it to a more appealing form. Three examples come to mind....

1. Leaving the court w/o permission. In the past, every one knew exactly what constituted leaving the court and the penalty was a T. 99% of the time, officials refused to call it because the penalty of a T was too harsh. We didn't actually call it as a violation like it was eventually changed to but we didn't call the rule as written. Eventually, because no one ever called it, they changed it to a violation and now it gets called. It doesn't happen more, it is just a fair penalty for the infraction.

2. Faking a foul. While some may claim otherwise as a justification to not call it, everyone knows a fake foul when they see it. Yet, we don't call it a T. Why? Too harsh of a penalty for the situation. We call it different than the book says because we don't like the book's penalty. If they were to change the penalty somehow, I bet it would get called.

3. Multiple fouls. I know of several instances where I "could" have called a multiple foul...times where two players contacted an opponent such that each contact alone was clearly and indisputably more than worthy of a foul (and the ball remained live due to it being a shooter). Yet, we pick one. We don't like the option of a multiple foul. We don't call it the way the rules are, but the way it is preferred.