NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[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With the current, outdated rule, the likelihood of a lane violation being a big factor in the outcome of a game is too large.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

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by 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

NFHS Handbook has the change back to the hit in 1997

[SNIPERBBB]

I'd like to see the elbow-to-head issue put into words in the book instead of as a constant POE. This would let us talk about other stupid cap in our meetings instead of just the elbows.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I'd like to see the elbow-to-head issue put into words in the book instead of as a constant POE.

Agree. SNIPERBBB is correct, it's not in the rulebook. It needs to be added to the definition of an intentional foul, and needs to be even clearer than when it was "just" a point of emphasis.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by 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

Rut:

I didn't climb up into the attic to check, but I knew the 1981 (actually the 1980-81 season I do believe) date was correct, but I knew that the change back to "hit" was done in the 1990's but did not remember it was in the late 1990's and not the early 1990's.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

I didn't climb up into the attic to check, but I knew the 1981 (actually the 1980-81 season I do believe) date was correct, but I knew that the change back to "hit" was done in the 1990's but did not remember it was in the late 1990's and not the early 1990's.

MTD, Sr.

All I knew is that I was officiating with the rule one way and it changed to the old way (which I did not realize was a old rule at the time of the current rule change).

Peace

[RefCT]

I am quite obviously late to the party and will throw my $0.02 in anyway.

My gut says the NFHS won't make any major rules changes as the past couple of years have been minor tweaks because (I think they said) they feel high school basketball is in a good place. (I offer that without opinion).

What I would like to see:
1. Coaches can't call TO's (this will never happen). Justification is obvious for this one. If I were in front of the committee, I would ask - are you more concerned about player safety or coaches being able to call a TO? Player safety is an issue if we have to take our eyes off the players during a scrum for a loose ball.
2. Substitutions are allowed before free throws for a Technical foul. Justification - these are kids and kids (and adults) are not the best at keeping a level head when they are fired up. Let the coach take the kid out immediately after he/she is given a T so something stupid doesn't cause them to miss the next game too. I've seen a couple higher level Varsity games where a kid gets a T (unsporting) and just goes and sits on his bench anyway. Sometimes the officials will just let a sub come in at some point so they don't have to go interrupt the coach talking him/her down. Why keep a player in there if the coach is going to sub him out anyway?

Interested in what people think about the 2nd one. The first one has been discussed already.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All I knew is that I was officiating with the rule one way and it changed to the old way (which I did not realize was a old rule at the time of the current rule change).

Peace

Boy! There is no pleasing you young'uns, LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[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 Multiple Sports

Just what we need, someone validating a response form Billy Mac !!!!

Will this help me realize my dream of becoming an esteemed Forum member.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Will this help me realize my dream of becoming an esteemed Forum member.

Anyhow, there you go. Well earned.