NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires
 

With the NFHS Rules Committee convening through tomorrow, I thought this would be a fun discussion.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Fed follow the NCAA's lead and write the four specific fouls on a ball handler into Rule 10-6 (arm bar, two hands, jabbing, continually touching), or something similar.

What I would like to see (as if my opinion means anything :D)...

-Free throw restrictions end on release for players in marked lane space (long overdue IMO)
-POI after a single non-flagrant technical foul (no stupid "contact dead ball technical foul" rule)
-Head coach does not lose box for indirect T
-Rewrite the backcourt rule and case plays

Abolish Alternating Possession, LOL! And POI.

MTD, Sr.

Why would you want to get rid of the POI?

'cause he wants a jump ball for all double fouls and IWs?

1. I'm good with that.
2 and 3, I like the way the rule is already. HS sports should keep the added penalties for sportsmanship lapses.
4. I'm not holding my breath.

No way I'd give up the seatbelt rule.

As usual, I'd like to see free throw restrictions end on the release and I'll be one of the weird ones that wants to get rid of the AP arrow.

Only for indirect T's.

For example, an assistant spontaneously curses at an official's call and is whacked. There's not necessarily any reason to believe that the head coach was allowing that behavior. It was simply a heat of the moment poor choice by another adult, over whom the head coach may only have so much control. Why not just tell the coach, "Keep your bench under control because that's on you, also" instead of making him sit for what was ultimately an action by another adult? Yes the head coach is responsible for the bench, but that's why he gets charged indirectly with T's on bench personnel. I'm fine with taking away the box for his own actions, but I don't love the idea of punishing the head coach more than an indirect T for another person's actions.

Just my two cents. Still, I would change the free throw restrictions rule before I changed this.

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.

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.

I'll bet they'd get off your ass if you started using the proper signals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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)

Survey Says ...
 

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.

2014 NFHS Basketball Rules Questionnaire...

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

I'd favor these...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You wont ever be able to change this, unless you find a way to force those guys into retirement.

I hope my state never uses a shot clock in hs basketball. Problems with the shot clock not being set/reset and started properly by incompetent table crews would become the biggest pain in the ass.

Running or stepping out of bounds.
 

How many actually call stepping out of bounds by offense or defense as a violation? If the defense does it you give the ball back to the offense and go and it is a turn over if the offense steps out.

Can we say gains an advantage by stepping out of bounds and go back to calling a charge if the defender seals of the endline by putting a foot on the line?

How many get tired of warning players and coaches for stepping OOB?

Must have a state full of idiots...we've had shot clock for quite some time and there aren't any more issues in a HS game than in a higher level game. Not even thinking back to the first few years...just wasn't that big of a problem.

And going back to getting rid of the seatbelt on an indirect T...I would be OK with that if they also changed the rule to only one T on assistant coaches being an ejection.

The problem is some schools, especially in Chicago, don't want to pay teachers to sit at the table as it is to do the book and scoreboard. They have students with little or no training. A problem that would be exacerbated with the addition of a shot clock.

If you cannot get JUCO and other small colleges to get a person to run a shot clock properly, without constant corrections, I do not think they will find consistency with 800 or so schools. I never want to see the shot clock at high school either. Not unless you have someone that is trained more to do the job. Often it is a kid or someone that would rather text message to a friend in the stands. No thanks!!!!

Peace

Stop warning and just blow the whistle.

Let's add a mechanic for "tripping" and come up with a mechanic for "piling on the scrum" on a loose ball.

1 - Any support or freedoms they can give to encourage shot clock.

2- Allowing players on the lane to leave on the release, and eliminating the wiping off of made baskets for violations made by teammates on the lane.

3 - Any removal on restrictions or application of as many fashion police items as possible.

4 - 1 TC/PC mechanic.

5 - Lets make "over the back" an actual thing so that players/coaches/fans can acutally properly ask for something.

So how in the heck are you going to accomplish this? You would need to completely change rules to make the back special and probably would have to define (by changing other definitions) when this could take place. The verticality rules are already clear and in place. I do not want to add a rule that would get screwed up by the wording. And I think this is not going to happen.

Peace

GT....the backboard element is fine for 3-man where you have a C low enough to get a good angle on the timing of the block vs. the board. With 2-man, that is a difficult angle. Even in the NCAA, the C and T are left guessing some of the time. The apex is easy to see and judge....leave it alone.

Direct T, with no shots....what would that be for? What would be worth a T but no shots?

Lead does administer such throw-ins, in two man ;)

All mechanics are already just guidelines. They should usually be followed, but they are still just guidelines.

APG:

I know that I am "old school" to a degree and that I can be obstinate sometimes when the Rules Committees (NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's) make rules changes that make no sense.

I do not have a problem with a rule change that makes the game better. What I am against is a change of the rules that addresses a situation that occurs once in 1x10**100 (I am engaging in some hyperbole here.) plays which when this extremely rare play occurs The Rule of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head.

I don't want to go into detail but I think the Correctable Error rule change about 20 years or so ago is one change that was one that was not needed but the excuse given was it made the game fairer, even though CEs, that while not extremely rare, do not occur so frequently that the rule needed to be changed.

The POI rule is one that makes the rules more complex than they need to be. I am a firm believer in putting the ball back into play in the order that "things" happen. But still, I have not, am not, and will not lose any sleep over the POI rule even though I would get rid of it if I could be the Basketball Czar for a day.

What really fries my tuchus is the TF rule in both the NFHS and the NCAA Men's/Women's (I am not in favor of the change in the NCAA Men's Guarding Rule change of this past season, so see my Basketball Czar comment above.).

The page size of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules books are approximately the same size. The TF section in the NFHS Rules is five pages and in the NCAA Men's/Women's Rules is eight pages. The page size of the NBCUSC (forefather/mother of the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's) 1971-72 Rule Book is the same size as today, yet the TF section is only two pages long. (I resisted the urge to make the font size the same size as the number of pages, :p.)

I have a Bachelor of Engineering degree with major in Civil Engineering (specialization in Structural Engineering and Highway Engineering) and a double minor in Mechanical Engineering (specialization in Engineering Mechanics) and Mathematics (specialization in Scientific and Engineering Applications) so I think that I am a fairly intelligent person. BUT my brain just explodes every time I read the NCAA TF section (The NFHS section just makes my head hurt like Charlie Brown's.). The most important rule in engineering design is: KISS (Not the band for you head bangers out there, :p.). Keep It Simple Stupid! The NFHS and NCAA has not done that and there is no reason for such complexity in the TF section. The TF sections should be no longer that three pages and still accomplish what the Rules Committees goals.

I didn't intend for this post to be so long (who am I kidding, :p), but seriously, if I could be Basketball Czar for just one day I would abolish the AP Rule, :D.

I hope that answered your question. Now I have to wonder if MTD, Jr., and I are going to have a H.S. baseball game to umpire this afternoon. Our game yesterday was canceled because there was one inch of snow on the ground and today the high is supposed to be 45F with wind chill temperatures in the mid-30Fs, and the home school is on Spring Break and we can't get in contact with the AD or HC. Have a good one.

MTD, Sr.

We heard all these same types of comments as we were putting the shot clock in...guess what - it wasn't (and isn't) as big a problem as you think it is.

Well that is great, then make it a state adopted rule and I hope my state does not adopt the rule.

But most of all this is going to be a cost issue. Schools that can barely afford athletics as it is will have to take on another expense. And in many cases will have to put in something in different gyms. Schools are having a problem getting uniforms for all their sports and now they will have to add thousands of dollars for a device? And yes not every school is funded the same way across the country. Many school districts are funded by property taxes and that means some schools have much more money than the other based on the community and house prices. I think that is one of the reason the NF is not going to touch this rule anytime soon. I am sure it is much worse in some other states.

Peace

I know here in VA, you pay your taxes, THEN you pay ~$100 for the honor of having your child participate in a V sport, and THEN you have to pay again at the game to see them play. Nice (sarc).

Yep, cost will certainly be a discussion point for shot clocks.

Can't disagree that in some situations it would be a cost that might be difficult to bear in some situations but its not a huge cost.

You can get individual clocks for less 300 and a decent package with two clocks and the wireless device to run them for less than a thousand.

If the high school kids run a summer day camp for elementary aged kids and charge them 50 bucks a pop and give them a 5 dollar tshirt and a week of basketball you've got them paid for.

You are talking about half the cost of 1 set of nice uniforms.

How many HS in one area do you think can do this? You need customers for a camp. And if there are 10 camps going on in one area, not every camp is going get enough money.

The bolded portion means it is still a problem. And we, at least around here, do not need the added headache. Not just a question of compentent table personnel, also competent officials.

You work NCAA games, right? How often do you have shot clock issues in a game?

It isn't any higher (and quite often is lower) per game than any of the college games I work.

This is my concern. All it takes is one major problem with the shot clock and someone is going to complain they were screwed. And I do not feel most HS officials honestly can keep themselves from further problems. At least not where the learning curve it would take to solve the issue. Yes, I realize many states do this already, but we have a larger state than many and I do not want the headaches trying to solve basic clock issues that some kid will screw up. Heck we have enough problems with trying to solve book issues, not we want to add that to someone that does not know the basic rules that a shot clock would apply?

Peace

I have to agree with Jeff here. I work with a shot-clock in my GV games and without one in most of my BV games. The headache comes from worrying whether the kid - and 99% of the time it's a kid - operating the shot-clock is paying attention or has even been trained properly. We still do the ten-second count in my GV game by hand because NYS didn't want to take it for granted that the shot-clock operators would reset/start the thing properly.

The only positive for me is I can solve shot-clock problems in my NCAAW games in a heartbeat because I'm so used to checking the thing from my HS games.

Don't Hold Your Breath ...
 

Airborne Shooter ...
 

Agree, but let's not forget that all team control fouls aren't exactly the same as all player control fouls.

I find it hard to believe that HS in your area are getting better table personal than colleges and/or that they are spending more time training them correctly. Regardless, this would definitely not be the case where JRut and I work HS games.

With Apologies To Forrest Gump
 

My momma says, "The table crew is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

We have enough problems in NCAA games with trained personnel that I do not want to deal with it in HS games with untrained personnel.

It may work great where you are, but I know from what I've seen around these parts I don't want it in my HS games.

This cracks me up...ALL of the things people are saying about the shot clock were said here when the idea first came up. Seriously - every single argument you guys are making came up here also.

Like I said...in the end, it really wasn't that big of a hassle.

Oh well...

There's also the fact that I don't think HS games need a shot clock.

Well that is great, but cost is the most important thing anyway. And that is why I do not feel the NF is going to make a rule that would require every jurisdiction to add this rule. Even if they did, I would see some states saying "Not yet...."

Peace

What is different? (that matters).

As long as you move the airborne shooter reference to the team control foul rule, you no longer need the player control foul at all.

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.

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.

You say the shooter has the biggest advantage? I think I see a shooter get the rebound maybe 3-4 times a year. Doesn't seem like a problem...the guys on the lane are 4 feet closer, they're fine.

It is a lot easier to judge the rim. You know exactly when it is going to happen. Guys are going in early only because no one calls it.

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.

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.

Hell no, we can't let them win.

You've Got It Covered ...
 

The second sentence in your post tells me that you are already aware of the difference, and have a remedy for the difference in the mechanics of the signal(s), a change in the rule along with a change in the signal chart.

Carnegie Hall ??? Practice, Practice, Practice ...
 

Same restrictions? How about their location on the lane, defense inside, offense farther out. The "inside" position is always a big advantage in rebounding.

Of course he does, but not in rebounding. He gets to take a fifteen foot shot, taking up to ten seconds to release it, with no defenders in his face trying to block his shot. Of course, that didn't help me in high school. I had an easier time making a put back with a defender than making an uncontested free throw.

Ergo the defense has all the advantage it needs, so why are we concerned that changing the rule to the release would be "unfair" for the defense?

The other thing is the violation isn't called in half the high school games I watch. Might as well just make the change.

I totally agree.

And I call this violation, but I seem like the only one that does. The rule was stupid to begin with. Why are we worried about this and act like the game is so rough in this area? All it does is cause other issues IMO.

Peace

Neither is the problem it's meant to address, IMO.

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.

I am not advocating for or against...just pointing out that the arguments people are making really don't have much basis. Same types of arguments people made (make) against 3-person mechanics.

OK, I was wondering if there was something else I was missing.

I think 3 person is different. We can train or run clinics to teach the officials what to do and there is a lot of literature or video to do so. How many schools train their table people to do anything? I wish I had a penny every time someone said to me that works the table, "I know what I have been doing, I have been here for XX years." Then when the game gets to a certain point, the clock does not start or they allow some other violation of the rules that is not brought to our attention?

And I do not see the game as needing a shot clock. For one most teams do not slow down the game that much. And if you put in a shot clock, teams will rush their offense. Remember these are HS kids, not a bunch of kids recruited to run a particular offense. I am sure it works in some places, but I am not worried about everyone having a problem, I am worried about the right problem at the wrong time, in the wrong situation. And it will happen if you have a shot clock. If I did not go places in college and see a bunch of mistakes that we have to constantly correct, I would not be so skeptical. And those mistakes happen with D1 officials working games. Now I want a guy that does not know the difference between POI and AP and they are going to catch a shot clock mistake.

Peace

The difference, to me, is that 3 person games provide a substantial enough benefit that the challenges (money, training) are worth it.

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.

Adam-you're right.all of the schools in our league have at least 1 adult at the table.Half the league employs all adults at the table.At my school the AD runs our shot clock,a vice principal of academics runs the game clock,and I handle the book.If anybody has to miss a game we have several backup personnel ready with given notice.If we can do it and have no drop off then every school can do it.

1. Your school puts the money and training time into it. Not every school does this (although I suspect most would to avoid embarrasment, if nothing else).
2. My main question is why? AFAIC, it's a solution in search of a problem. For the 1 or two games per season we hear about that end up 15-7 because of stall-ball (nationwide)? I just don't see it as worth the expense.

That said, if the states want to adopt it, I have no problem with opening it up that way: allow the state adoption to include the SC. I'd just be against it in my state, and against a mandatory use at the NFHS level (probably at least 10 years away).

Evidence ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Late to the party
 

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. ;)

No Elbows On The Table ...
 

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.

The second one is already the rule.

Substitution Restrictions ...
 

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?

Handing out fish again, Billy?

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

MTD, Sr.

Confucius Says ...
 

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.

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

False Multiple Foul Substitution ???
 

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.

Cut And Dry ...
 

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:

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).

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).

Agree.

I also think that if a player is brought in to just shoot FTs for the T, I am going to allow all other substitutes that are ready to come in as well, especially if that player that is coming out was given a T. And I still think that is rare situation that no one is going to really care about either way.

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.

Peace

Technical Foul Substitution Restrictions ???
 

You think right, 100% correct, it's already covered in the existing rule, and has been covered in the rule for the past fifteen years, since the rule's inception: "During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls ...". The substitution restrictions never have covered multiple free throws for technical fouls.

It has already been interpreted by either my state or the NF (I am not looking this up) that you can bring in all subs during a disqualification sub or technical situation when subs are already coming in the game. I have always done it that way and never had anyone hold up the rule and say it was incorrect. And the way I understand this, no one really cares because the purpose of the rule is to prevent unnecessary delays. You are not delaying anything if subs can already come into the game at that time and the opponent has their subs ready to go.

Peace

Exception ...
 

And you would be 100% correct: 3-3-1-C 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.

The only problem is that, in Nevadaref's post, there is no player who has been required to be replaced (injury, blood, untucked jersey, disqualification, jewelry, illegal equipment, etc.), so we need to look at another rule to allow an "early" substitution.

And you would be 100% correct again.

So is the debate that someone is not at the table waiting to be subbed for?

Peace

Coach Wants Kid To Sit And Calm Down ...
 

The debate is that, in Nevadaref's post, the first two free throws are for the personal foul portion of the false multiple foul, and, according to some (who may be correct), even in this false multiple foul situation, we have substitution restrictions until after that first free throw (for the personal foul) has been attempted. According to some, this would not allow us to get the T'd up (not disqualified) player substituted for until after the first free throw, when some, including RefCT, and the kid's coach, would like to get him out of the game sooner, to separate him from his opponents (probably all standing behind the division line), thus avoiding further problems.

Billy,

I guess I do not see this as a big deal. For one working 3 person, there is usually one of us that can watch that player. If the player is really a problem to the coach, he/she will be talking to them directly anyway. But officiating basketball is often a feel thing anyway, so I do see your point. I just do not see the big deal either way. If the coach cannot control his/her player, they will be subjected to other rules that could cost the team and the coach knows this. And not all Ts are about the opponent either. Some are directed at you as an official and I do not need a kid to be off the floor to handle my business. Kids say and do things on the bench too.

Peace