NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefCT

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.

The second one is already the rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Technical foul ... Why keep a player in there if the coach is going to sub him out anyway?

Are you talking about multiple fee throws? Remember this is a technical foul that we're discussing, so substitutions can be made at any time. Restrictions on substitutions are limited to personal fouls.

3-3-1-C: During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls, substitutions
may be made only before the final attempt in the sequence and after the
final attempt has been converted.
EXCEPTION: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering
the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter
the game.

Or am I way out in left field and missing something here?

[Adam]

Handing out fish again, Billy?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Handing out fish again, Billy?

If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.

If you teach a man to fish, he'll learn to sit in a boat all day and drink beer with his friends.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you talking about multiple fee throws? Remember this is a technical foul that we're discussing, so substitutions can be made at any time. Restrictions on substitutions are limited to personal fouls.

3-3-1-C: During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls, substitutions
may be made only before the final attempt in the sequence and after the
final attempt has been converted.
EXCEPTION: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering
the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter
the game.

Or am I way out in left field and missing something here?

B1 is whistled for fouling A1 in the act of shooting. The try is unsuccessful. B1 doesn't like the call and protests to the official which results in a technical foul on B1. By rule, when do you permit Team B's coach to substitute for B1?

I believe that this is what the poster had in mind, even though he wasn't able to express it clearly.

I'm sure APG would be in favor of changing the terminology from "center" to "slot" :P

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

B1 is whistled for fouling A1 in the act of shooting. The try is unsuccessful. B1 doesn't like the call and protests to the official which results in a technical foul on B1. By rule, when do you permit Team B's coach to substitute for B1?

Thanks Nevadaref for a good example (false multiple foul) that is not as cut and dry as I was thinking.

My opinion: Since these are multiple free throws resulting from a combination of personal and technical fouls, not multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls only, I'm allowing Team B's coach to substitute from the get-go.

As usual, I'm open to other interpretations from esteemed, or unesteemed, on nonesteemed, or steamed, members who may not agree with me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks Nevadaref for a good example (false multiple foul) that is not as cut and dry as I was thinking.

My opinion: Since these are multiple free throws resulting from a combination of personal and technical fouls, not multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls only, I'm allowing Team B's coach to substitute from the get-go.

As usual, I'm open to other interpretations from esteemed, or unesteemed, on nonesteemed, or steamed, members who may not agree with me.

I think NV's example is cut and dried, and I hadn't thought of it when responding. It isn't all that uncommon, and it would apply regardless of whether the same team was shooting all the FTs. It's plain enough to me that I'm going to recognize that I'd be making up my own rules by allowing a substitution here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think NV's example is cut and dried ... It isn't all that uncommon...

Agree that false multiples are not all that uncommon, however, no way that a false multiple foul, with one personal, and one technical, is as cut and dry as a single technical foul, which is what I first thought as I read the original situation:

Originally Posted by RefCT

Substitutions are allowed before free throws for a Technical foul.

One definition of cut and dry is: Not needing much thought, or discussion. If a false multiple foul (Nevadaref's post) occurs in my game, my partner, and I, are going to get together for a few seconds to make sure we handle the free throws, indeed, the whole situation, the right way (correct reporting of multiple fouls, correct order of free throws, correct free throw shooters, correct baskets, correct inbounds after the dust settles, and, in RefCT's, and Nevadaref's, case, legal substitutions).

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd be making up my own rules by allowing a substitution here.

I think that "making up my (your) own rules" is a little too strong here. I believe that there is some "wiggle room" in the substitution restrictions (3-3-1-C) during a series of free throws that are penalties for a combination of personal, and technical fouls, i.e. a false multiple foul (involving a technical foul), or even a false double foul (involving a technical foul). I don't even think that we have to resort to 2-3 here because of the "wiggle room" that I perceive to specifically covered in the rules.

But, of course, if one doesn't believe in my "wiggle room" theory, then we can simply agree to go with 2-3, a basketball official's version of Monopoly's "Get Out Of Jail, Free" card.

Or we can go with the Intent and Purpose of this substitution restriction rule, "to minimize time taken for substitutions ... does not preclude a substitution(s) during free throws" (Comments On The 1998-99 Basketball Rules Revisions). Since we're already taking few extra seconds to make sure we handle this false multiple foul situation correctly, we might as well beckon in the substitute(s).

In any case, I'm allowing the coach to get the kid out of the game as soon as possible after the kid is served his "cup of tea", using 3-3-1-C, or 2-3, or Intent and Purpose, whichever rule rocks your boat. What the heck? We can cite all three rules if we want. That should satisfy the rules nit-pickers that we all come across occasionally, either here, on the Forum, or outside in the real world of basketball officiating (or even that guy sitting here in front of my computer monitor, just who the heck does that guy think he is?).

Bottom line: I don't think that we need RefCT's rule change, but his post did generate some good discussion. Kudos to RefCT for his post (and it was only is eleventh post, not too shabby).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Rules changes are often made because there is a problem or a flaw in the rule or the game. I do not see this as the case here.

Agree.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

I am just saying that I am not too old to forget these kinds of things yet.

Peace