NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

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)

[BillyMac]

Anybody remember this?

2014 NFHS Basketball Rules Questionnaire

Part I – Are These Changes Made Last Year Satisfactory

1. The use of electronic devices is permitted during the game.

2. A single visible manufacturer's logo/trademark/reference is permitted on the team jersey, not to exceed 2 1/4 square inches with no dimension more than 2 1/4 inches. The manufacturer's logo may be located no more than 5
inches below the shoulder seam on the front of the jersey, or 2 inches from the neckline on the back of the jersey; or in either side insert.

3. Leg compression sleeve was added to this rule to make its use consistent with the rule for wearing an arm compression sleeve. As with the arm compression sleeve, the leg compression sleeve must be white, beige, black or a single solid school color; must be the same color for each team member; and have only a single manufacturer’s logo. Leg compression sleeves must be worn for medical reasons.

4. A team shall not use a megaphone or any electronic communication device at courtside, or electronic equipment for voice communication with players on the court.

5. A team shall not use electronic audio and /or video devices to review a decision of the contest officials.

6. The head coach may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out – or has broken out – to prevent the situation from escalating.

Part II – Observations – Have You Seen In Your Area?

1. Contact on the high screen(s).

2. Hedging the dribbler – contact in the perimeter off screens/dribble drives.

3. Arm bar in the post by the defender.

4. Officials not starting their count initially on closely guarded situations.

5. Officials moving too fast once call is made.

6. Officials not using proper mechanics.

7. The overuse of many different types of leg compression sleeves.

8. The spin move called as travel.

Part III – About Rules For 2014-15 – Would You Favor?

1. Allowing participants to wear tights.

2. Allowing the use of the "punch" signal for player-control foul as well as team-control foul.

3. Changing the number of time-outs to 3-30s and 2-60s.

4. Allowing the 3-point line to be moved out by 2 inches.

5. Playing with the 3-foot restricted-area arc to assist with calling block/charge on a secondary defender.

6. Allowing the use of a shot clock as a state adoption option.

7. Allowing the use of 18-minute halves as a state adoption option.

8. Adding more signals to the “signal chart.”

9. Not using the "stop the clock signal" on violations.

10. Clarifying when the clock starts on a missed free throw that hasn't been touched and is rolling on the floor.

11. Eliminating the opportunity for the head coach to call time-out. It would have to come from a player on the playing court.

12. Eliminating the requirement for players or coaches to verify that compression sleeves are worn for medical reasons.

13. Allowing players to move into the lane on the release rather than wait for the ball to contact the ring.

14. Clarifying language on what announcers can announce during the contest.

[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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

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.

Absolutely, change that rule. The offensive free throw shooter has the biggest advantage the way the rule is right now. The guys standing next to him cannot get in the lane fast enough to box him out. I hate that. Plus, the release is a much easier thing to judge, than hitting the rim. Guys on the lane line get away with going in a foot before the ball hits the rim. It's too close for a ref to call, but not too close for an advantage to be gained.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

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.

They tried that, for many years, and the results were that officials just didn't call the fouls they wanted to be called. So, they changed the rule to get the desired result.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

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.

The NFHS has made it clear that part of their reasoning is the change in the balance between offensive and defensive FT rebounds is not something they want. The fact is, as it is now, the rule gives the defense an added advantage due here, and for now, the NFHS likes that.

And I don't see how the likelihood of a lane violation changes if you change the rule. Players are going to try to cheat in no matter when you release the players along the lane.

[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.