NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[Welpe]

No way I'd give up the seatbelt rule.

As usual, I'd like to see free throw restrictions end on the release and I'll be one of the weird ones that wants to get rid of the AP arrow.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Welpe

No way I'd give up the seatbelt rule.

Only for indirect T's.

For example, an assistant spontaneously curses at an official's call and is whacked. There's not necessarily any reason to believe that the head coach was allowing that behavior. It was simply a heat of the moment poor choice by another adult, over whom the head coach may only have so much control. Why not just tell the coach, "Keep your bench under control because that's on you, also" instead of making him sit for what was ultimately an action by another adult? Yes the head coach is responsible for the bench, but that's why he gets charged indirectly with T's on bench personnel. I'm fine with taking away the box for his own actions, but I don't love the idea of punishing the head coach more than an indirect T for another person's actions.

Just my two cents. Still, I would change the free throw restrictions rule before I changed this.

I would like:

The goaltending rule to mirror the NCAA-M rule
The ability to put a "coaching box warning", "bench warning", or "coach warning" in the book, for whatever that's worth
Addition of a direct technical foul with no free throws that counts toward an ejection
The NCAA-M "automatic" hand check fouls, not just RSBQ

Mechanics changes:
Lead able to administer sideline throw-in below the FTLE
Lead's area includes primary on 3-point shooter in their corner à la NCAA-W
NCAA-M switching (not popular)
Ability to use game clock for 10 second backcourt count
Emphasis that C cannot initiate a rotation
Emphasis that the "Official Signals" are more like guidelines

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can think of more.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would like:

The goaltending rule to mirror the NCAA-M rule
The ability to put a "coaching box warning", "bench warning", or "coach warning" in the book, for whatever that's worth
Addition of a direct technical foul with no free throws that counts toward an ejection
The NCAA-M "automatic" hand check fouls, not just RSBQ

Mechanics changes:
Lead able to administer sideline throw-in below the FTLE
Lead's area includes primary on 3-point shooter in their corner à la NCAA-W
NCAA-M switching (not popular)
Ability to use game clock for 10 second backcourt count
Emphasis that C cannot initiate a rotation
Emphasis that the "Official Signals" are more like guidelines

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can think of more.

I don't like most of your mechanics changes

2. Who watches post play on strong side while lead is officiating the 3-point shooter in the corner?

4. This would never work. Game clock runs before ball is at disposal of shooter, and while they are completing the throw in. Now official has to watch action he is responsible for, determine what time the ball was touched in bounds, and then calculate what time the clock has to read for violation. No thanks. It works with a shot clock, but not the game clock.

5. This is ridiculous. When the ball is trapped or pressured near the half court line on the Cs side, he damn well better initiate a rotation by getting his ass off the FTLE and going out there to officiate the play, and the L better recognize what is happening and get over where he belongs.

6. Reducing them to guidelines gives the impression that officials can make up their own signals or not use signals when needed. This would make a problem bigger, not help in any way whatsoever.

Originally Posted by johnny d

I don't like most of your mechanics changes

2. Who watches post play on strong side while lead is officiating the 3-point shooter in the corner?

4. This would never work. Game clock runs before ball is at disposal of shooter, and while they are completing the throw in. Now official has to watch action he is responsible for, determine what time the ball was touched in bounds, and then calculate what time the clock has to read for violation. No thanks. It works with a shot clock, but not the game clock.

5. This is ridiculous. When the ball is trapped or pressured near the half court line on the Cs side, he damn well better initiate a rotation by getting his ass off the FTLE and going out there to officiate the play, and the L better recognize what is happening and get over where he belongs.

6. Reducing them to guidelines gives the impression that officials can make up their own signals or not use signals when needed. This would make a problem bigger, not help in any way whatsoever.

I understand.

2. I could be wrong, but I don't see much post play when a shooter is shooting in the corner. Most of the time when a player is trying to feed the post they are doing so from the wing, which is still Trails area. If by post play you mean rebounding coverage, then the Trail takes care of that. From what I understand, the Trail and C have a better view of what constitutes rebounding displacement than the Lead. I think this is how the NBA covers things.

4. "Game clock runs before ball is at disposal of shooter" Huh? I guess I really just want a shot clock then. Either way, I take a peek at the clock whenever the 10-second count should start -- it gives me a leg up when a coach questions my count. I just ask him "do you know what time on the clock did the count start? Cuz I know."

5. Lol, that was more of a jab at the old-timers who refuse to officiate "inside-out" from C....whenever the ball nears their side they are bailing out to get to Trail. As always, go where you need to go to best officiate the play.

6. Yeah but it might get all the guys who criticize the way I point or the stronger block, PC, or TC signal I use off my ass.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I understand.


6. Yeah but it might get all the guys who criticize the way I point or the stronger block, PC, or TC signal I use off my ass.

I'll bet they'd get off your ass if you started using the proper signals.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

I'll bet they'd get off your ass if you started using the proper signals.

Eh, there are better ways of calling a PC foul than fist, hand to the back of the head, and point (all with the same hand). I'm not at all bothered by people who suggest that the strict adherence to a set of mechanics is counterproductive.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

5. Lol, that was more of a jab at the old-timers who refuse to officiate "inside-out" from C....whenever the ball nears their side they are bailing out to get to Trail. As always, go where you need to go to best officiate the play.

The best place to go is to the T position, pulling the L across. The C shouldn't be expected to officiate "on ball" for very long. We put 2 officials ball-side for a reason.

Putting a warning in the book is just idiotic, IMO. I see officials advocating that now and I always ask them how that helps and where there's anything written that supports that kind of "written" warning. If you're going to take the time to put a warning in a book, just whack the coach and get it over with.

Originally Posted by Rich

The best place to go is to the T position, pulling the L across. The C shouldn't be expected to officiate "on ball" for very long. We put 2 officials ball-side for a reason.

Not totally correct. The Lead is almost always in charge of the rotation. If the C is on-ball, the best place to go (at first) is to stay where he is. When the Lead comes over then the C can release (if appropriate) and move out to Trail. You'll see this in college and NBA a lot; the C will stay with his good angle until he begins to lose it (at which point the Lead is over), and will move out to Trail to maintain that angle.

Both very true. I was thinking of a different phenomenon however. All too often I see C's bailing out to Trail when the ball swings over to their side, never settles, and immediately goes back across. In this situation a patient Lead would not have initiated a rotation, but the C is moving out anyway. Then, when a strong-side shot happens, the C is nowhere near good position (FTLE) to referee the weak-side rebounding. I dunno, maybe it's just my area.

Originally Posted by Rich

Putting a warning in the book is just idiotic, IMO. I see officials advocating that now and I always ask them how that helps and where there's anything written that supports that kind of "written" warning. If you're going to take the time to put a warning in a book, just whack the coach and get it over with.

Yeah, putting a warning in the book is not something I have done or plan on doing, but a couple college guys have mentioned it is a tool they use when a coach is out of line. I'll retract that one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

Putting a warning in the book is just idiotic, IMO. I see officials advocating that now and I always ask them how that helps and where there's anything written that supports that kind of "written" warning. If you're going to take the time to put a warning in a book, just whack the coach and get it over with.

I actually think it would be counter-productive. Frankly it would just give fuel to the "Don't you have to warn me first" idiocy.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by AremRed

5. Lol, that was more of a jab at the old-timers who refuse to officiate "inside-out" from C....whenever the ball nears their side they are bailing out to get to Trail. As always, go where you need to go to best officiate the play.

You wont ever be able to change this, unless you find a way to force those guys into retirement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would like:

The goaltending rule to mirror the NCAA-M rule
The ability to put a "coaching box warning", "bench warning", or "coach warning" in the book, for whatever that's worth
Addition of a direct technical foul with no free throws that counts toward an ejection
The NCAA-M "automatic" hand check fouls, not just RSBQ

Mechanics changes:
Lead able to administer sideline throw-in below the FTLE
Lead's area includes primary on 3-point shooter in their corner à la NCAA-W
NCAA-M switching (not popular)
Ability to use game clock for 10 second backcourt count
Emphasis that C cannot initiate a rotation
Emphasis that the "Official Signals" are more like guidelines

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can think of more.

GT....the backboard element is fine for 3-man where you have a C low enough to get a good angle on the timing of the block vs. the board. With 2-man, that is a difficult angle. Even in the NCAA, the C and T are left guessing some of the time. The apex is easy to see and judge....leave it alone.

Direct T, with no shots....what would that be for? What would be worth a T but no shots?

Lead does administer such throw-ins, in two man

All mechanics are already just guidelines. They should usually be followed, but they are still just guidelines.