NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

The shooter has an advantage in rebounding, in that when you wait for the hit, it is impossible to get across the lane in time to box him out (if the shooter makes an effort).

I can see your point, but like Camron Rust stated earlier, it only happens, maybe, three, or four, times a year, i.e., free throw shooter getting own rebound (I think Camron Rust's numbers are a little too high), so I doubt that the NFHS sees this as a problem.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

The shooter has an advantage in rebounding, in that when you wait for the hit, it is impossible to get across the lane in time to box him out (if the shooter makes an effort). When you go on the release, and the shooter has to wait for the hit, it is easy to box him out.

If it is an advantage, they certainly are not taking advantage of it more. It is so rare that you go most of the season and not see this situation. Usually the guys closer are in a little early anyway and this does not even give the shooter a chance.

I just feel that we have a rule that is so inconsistently applied by official and we really need to just go back to what other levels do. It was never that rough in the first place. It is no different than any other rebounding situation.

Peace

[SCalScoreKeeper]

I want to address the shot clock issue:
I work in California ,which uses the shot clock with both boys and girls games, and am privileged to work with some very good table crews out here.The operation of the shot clock is very rarely an issue in our league.AD's here know it is important to provide highly qualified table staff and everybody does their best to make sure that all contests are staffed with qualified personnel.
I think the biggest issue is making sure each game has a qualified scorekeeper on it instead of someone who just gets the game 10 minutes beforehand.At my school I handle 3 of 4 games on a game day.I handle JV Boys,Varsity Girls,and Varsity Boys while a student handles JV Girls.I train any student scorekeepers myself and emphasize professionalism with them from the moment they start with me.I visited one school this year that had an 8 year old boy attempt to be the official scorer on varsity (they use the JV girls coaches wife for both JV games). When the officials saw this during pre-game warmups they transferred official scorer powers to me for both varsity games.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

I want to address the shot clock issue:
I work in California ,which uses the shot clock with both boys and girls games, and am privileged to work with some very good table crews out here.The operation of the shot clock is very rarely an issue in our league.AD's here know it is important to provide highly qualified table staff and everybody does their best to make sure that all contests are staffed with qualified personnel.
I think the biggest issue is making sure each game has a qualified scorekeeper on it instead of someone who just gets the game 10 minutes beforehand.At my school I handle 3 of 4 games on a game day.I handle JV Boys,Varsity Girls,and Varsity Boys while a student handles JV Girls.I train any student scorekeepers myself and emphasize professionalism with them from the moment they start with me.I visited one school this year that had an 8 year old boy attempt to be the official scorer on varsity (they use the JV girls coaches wife for both JV games). When the officials saw this during pre-game warmups they transferred official scorer powers to me for both varsity games.

SoCal, you are truly the exception and not the rule. If I could fly you out here for my games I would. I just don't think most coaches or ADs at the HS level in NYC care unless a mistake affects them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen coaches running around five minutes before tip looking for a kid to run the game and/or shot-clock. Then when something goes wrong they want to get mad at the kid (or me and my partner).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

SoCal, you are truly the exception and not the rule. If I could fly you out here for my games I would. I just don't think most coaches or ADs at the HS level in NYC care unless a mistake affects them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen coaches running around five minutes before tip looking for a kid to run the game and/or shot-clock. Then when something goes wrong they want to get mad at the kid (or me and my partner).

I will say this, around here, training wouldn't be an issue for 95% of the HS games. Most schools use a staff member (willingness unknown) for table duties during the games. Some might be a problem, but not many. I still think this is an unnecessary expense with very little benefit.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

The NFHS has made it clear ...

I hope that you younguns' realize that the over the past thirty-plus years that NFHS has changed the rules from the "hit", to the "release" (1981), and, most recently, back to the "hit" (1997).

Players going in on the "release" has been tried, not just in a few states as an "experiment", but, rather, as a national rule change, and, at least according to the NFHS, it didn't work. If I can recall the rationale regarding why we changed the last time, it was because there was too much contact, illegal, and otherwise, when players entered on the "release". You guys are all certainly entitled to your various opinions, but the NFHS had empirical evidence that caused them to go back to the "hit".

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along in a while, if he can drag himself off the baseball, or softball, field, to give us some of the history regarding these rule changes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I hope that you younguns' realize that the over the past thirty-plus years that NFHS has changed the rules from the "hit", to the "release" (1981 ???), and, most recently, back to the "hit" (1993 ???).

Players going in on the "release" has been tried, not just in a few states as an "experiment", but, rather, as a national rule change, and, at least according to the NFHS, it didn't work. If I can recall the rationale regarding why we changed the last time, it was because there was too much contact, illegal, and otherwise, when players entered on the "release". You guys are all certainly entitled to your various opinions, but the NFHS had empirical evidence that caused them to go back to the "hit".

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along in a while, if he can drag himself off the baseball, or softball, field, to give us some of the history regarding these rule changes.

Billy is correct in his dates. The NFHS and NCAA Men's changed from "hit" to "release" in 1981. The NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees said the change was made because officials were not enforcing the rule as written. When the NCAA Women's Committee was created in the late 1980's it adopted the NCAA Men's "release" rule. When the NFHS change back to "hit" in 1993, the reason was due excessive contact during rebounding action. BUT, one can go back through all of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's POEs for the last 20 years and one will see that illegal contact has been a concern more often than not and the Rules Committees POEs would seem that the Committees want officials to call more fouls.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

I say leave the free throws alone. If you go back to the release, you have a wrestling match in the lane on even the successful free throws.

[JRutledge]

Are you sure this was in 1993? I was officiating when this was changed back from the release to the "hit." I think it was later in the 90s?

Peace

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Billy is correct in his dates. The NFHS and NCAA Men's changed from "hit" to "release" in 1981. The NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees said the change was made because officials were not enforcing the rule as written. When the NCAA Women's Committee was created in the late 1980's it adopted the NCAA Men's "release" rule. When the NFHS change back to "hit" in 1993, the reason was due excessive contact during rebounding action. BUT, one can go back through all of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's POEs for the last 20 years and one will see that illegal contact has been a concern more often than not and the Rules Committees POEs would seem that the Committees want officials to call more fouls.

MTD, Sr.

Just what we need, someone validating a response form Billy Mac !!!! Now that he thinks he is right, we may have to hear him for the entire off -season !!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I hope that you younguns' realize that the over the past thirty-plus years that NFHS has changed the rules from the "hit", to the "release" (1981), and, most recently, back to the "hit" (1997).

Thanks guys. I changed the date from 1993 to 1997.

This is what confused me: 2006-08 NFHS Basketball Handbook: 1993: Player along lane may not break plane of free throw line until ball hit backboard, etc.

You would think that after thirty-three years I would know the difference between a free throw line, and a lane line?

Now I'm never going to realize my dream of becoming an esteemed Forum member. One step forward. Two steps backward.