NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[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.

[Nevadaref]

I predict that the wearing of full-length tights will be made legal and incorporated into the leg-sleeve/arm-sleeve rule for restrictions on colors.

Additionally, I'd like to see the NFHS:
a. make the shot clock an acceptable state adoption.

b. The entirety of the team control/player control/backcourt violation rules need to be rewritten. They are still a mess from the TC foul change about three seasons ago.

c. Clarify that fighting during a live ball is a flagrant PERSONAL foul and that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

d. Reporting mechanic: permit two-handed reporting for fouls.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I predict that the wearing of full-length tights will be made legal and incorporated into the leg-sleeve/arm-sleeve rule for restrictions on colors.

Additionally, I'd like to see the NFHS:
a. make the shot clock an acceptable state adoption.

b. The entirety of the team control/player control/backcourt violation rules need to be rewritten. They are still a mess from the TC foul change about three seasons ago.

c. Clarify that fighting during a live ball is a flagrant PERSONAL foul and that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

d. Reporting mechanic: permit two-handed reporting for fouls.

I would agree that NFHS' rule changes will probably address some type of uniform "issue." So with that, I agree with your assessment there.

I also pretty much agree with what you'd like to see as far as A, B, and D go. I'd even go so far as to say I'd prefer the walk-and-talk when reporting, but that would just be getting greedy.

*edit*

I'd also support making the team control punch the signal for all "offensive fouls" (team and player control) and getting rid of the stupid hand behind the head mechanic. I'd also support making the fist on the hips signal for a block the official mechanic. The only reason I want NFHS to address this is for states that decide they want to be anal about using the weaker signals suggested by NFHS

I addition, as far as mechanics go, I want more signals added...hit to the head, and actual tripping signal...forearm...defender bringing the arms down an impending on the verticality of a shooter (I believe NCAA-M added the signal this past year). I'd also add signals like the "juggling" signal to indicate you travel because of no possession. I'm sure I've left a few out, but more signals for situations like this I'd like to see mechanics wise.

[JetMetFan]

*Since I live in both mechanics worlds, let me say walk & talk on fouls is wonderful. However, I think to do that it would be helpful to standardize where the calling official goes after a foul, i.e. table side. Some states do, some don't. If you're going to walk towards the table to give the numbers then walk away you might get an uptick in "BUZZ...Ref, what number was that?" If you're table side they just ask you sans horn.

*Nevada, I think some states will push back on making the shot-clock an acceptable choice if only because they don't want it at all.

*I think they'll adopt the NCAA contact guidelines and it makes sense. The logic behind it at the college level was we'd let the Tower Philosophy run wild, which is true. I think the same thing is happening at the HS level. You're going to get lots of howling from coaches and officials if the change is made but I found by mid-season in my GV/NCAAW games the kids adjusted. Those who hadn't were on the bench. Also, the kids who go on the play college ball are going to see the guidelines at the next level. If HS basketball is about teaching, this would be a teachable moment.

*Not covering a three-point attempt in my corner when working three-person is one of the toughest adjustments for me in a BV game. It doesn't make sense to essentially ignore something taking place right next to me. As for who covers the post, the T has first crack. The C has second crack, but C always has second crack so that's no different.

*If only NYC had a seat belt rule...(sigh)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I predict that the wearing of full-length tights will be made legal and incorporated into the leg-sleeve/arm-sleeve rule for restrictions on colors.

Additionally, I'd like to see the NFHS:
a. make the shot clock an acceptable state adoption.

b. The entirety of the team control/player control/backcourt violation rules need to be rewritten. They are still a mess from the TC foul change about three seasons ago.

c. Clarify that fighting during a live ball is a flagrant PERSONAL foul and that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

d. Reporting mechanic: permit two-handed reporting for fouls.

a) Absolutely not. You would be adding a significant cost to schools. Most schools would not be able to afford the cost of adding a shot clock.

b) Completely agree. This section needs to be rewritten.

c) Agreed.

d) Disagree, unless they change the rules to allow all numbers to be worn. Personally I think the rules need to stay the way they are on foul reporting.

I also don't want the restriction on free throws to end on the release. The way the rule is now is fine. Changing the rule will increase unneeded physical contact on free throws. The current rules penalize the offensive player if they miss the free throw because they give the defense the inside position for free throw missed rebounds, and the offense a limited time to overcome that. If you change to the release you lessen the penalty for missing a free throw because you increase the time the offense has to position themselves for a rebound. The simplest solution is that the offense should make the FREE throws in the first place.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I also don't want the restriction on free throws to end on the release. The way the rule is now is fine. Changing the rule will increase unneeded physical contact on free throws. The current rules penalize the offensive player if they miss the free throw because they give the defense the inside position for free throw missed rebounds, and the offense a limited time to overcome that. If you change to the release you lessen the penalty for missing a free throw because you increase the time the offense has to position themselves for a rebound. The simplest solution is that the offense should make the FREE throws in the first place.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. The players along the lane are all subject to the same restrictions, regardless of offense or defense. Unneeded physical contact? If it creates a disadvantage, call a foul. It's that simple. As for rebounding, the defense still has four players along the lane as opposed to the offense's two (three including the shooter). The defense has all the "advantage" it needs.

With the current, outdated rule, the likelihood of a lane violation being a big factor in the outcome of a game is too large. There's no reason not to change this rule.

[Adam]

Honestly, the only change I really care about is fixing the TC cluster f$#! they created. That need is desperate, and if not done soon, the NFHS will eventually decide all those new BC plays we keep discussing are actually violations.

Seasoned veterans in my association are reading the TC rules and deciding as much: guys who won't listen to anyone tell them about some powerpoint from three years ago.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Another change that almost all of us (officials) would like to see but most likely won't is a return to time-out requests having to come from a player.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... time-out requests having to come from a player.