2015-16 NFHS Proposed Basketball Rule Changes ...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because, right now, you have a situation where a player touches the ball during a field-goal try, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, and, by strict interpretation of the written definition, the official can call either a goaltending violation, or a basket interference violation.

And? There are other situations, all far more likely, where we have multiple choices for violations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

And? There are other situations, all far more likely, where we have multiple choices for violations.

I sincerely believe that this was an editing mistake by the committee, not an announced change, several years ago. The goaltending definition was fine as it was before the mistake, it should go back to the way it was, and, as I said, in a previous post, it's more of a "test taking" change, than a practical change.

If it really wasn't a mistake, and they had a good reason to drop that part of the definition, then they won't have a good reason to put that part of the definition back into the rulebook.

Previous to the 2004-05 season it was clear to all that there were five specific conditions under which goaltending could occur. Let's go back to those misty water colored memories. Simpler times, and simpler pleasures.

I believe that this goaltending mistake was a simple "brain fart", just like the dropping of the "captains request a line up after multiple substitutions" rule, that was, I believe, inadvertently dropped from the rulebook several years ago. I was one of several officials who brought that to the attention of the NFHS, and it was put back in the rulebook.

Sometimes (a kind word, maybe not deserved) the NFHS drops the ball, and, then, somebody has to pick it up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

There are other situations, all far more likely, where we have multiple choices for violations.

If you think that you can clear these up with just a few minor changes in the rulebook, then go ahead and make some suggestions next year. Sometimes they do listen. You may have to be persistent, but sometimes they do listen.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If you think that you can clear these up with just a few minor changes in the rulebook, then go ahead and make some suggestions next year. Sometimes they do listen. You may have to be persistent, but sometimes they do listen.

I don't see a need, that's the thing. Who cares? The penalty is the same, just pick one and go with it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't see a need, that's the thing. Who cares? The penalty is the same, just pick one and go with it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's more of a "test taking" change, than a practical change.

Maybe it's because I'm a retired middle school science teacher? Maybe it's because I'm now an analytical chemist? Maybe it because I served several years on my local board's training committee? Whenever possible (and sometimes it's not possible), I like simple, cut, and dry answers to questions; right, or wrong; yes, or no; correct, or incorrect; true, or false; basket interference, or goaltending. The less debate, the better I like it, keeping in mind that this sometimes can't be avoided, especially with more open ended, complex situations.

Imagine some type of written test, maybe for initial certification.

A1 tries for two point goal. B1 touches the ball while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and while the ball has a possibility of entering the basket. Official rules a goaltending violation on B1 and awards A1 two points. Is the official correct?

Hopeful basketball official newbie notes "ball in the cylinder" and answers, "No", because he deems "ball in the cylinder" to be indicative of a basket interference violation.

Rather than get into a debate about if, and why, both "Yes", and "No", answers might be correct, as we often debate here on the Forum when the NFHS is unclear about a particular rule, definition, play, or situation, wouldn't it be nice to have one cut, and dry, answer here, with no debate necessary?

Imagine how much time we would save debating things here on the Forum if the NFHS were crystal clear on all their definitions, and rules?

I sincerely believe that a careless mistake was made in 2005-06, not an announced editorial rule change. It's simple to fix. Why not fix it?

If it weren't simple to fix (see team control/throwin/backcourt), I wouldn't try to fix it. I'm not that good at fixing complicated things. You should have seen me struggle to set all of my various clocks ahead one hour last weekend.

There are already enough players, coaches, and fans, that can't differentiate between basket interference, and goaltending. We really don't need any rules that feed into this myth.

The five part goaltending definition was good in 2004-05. Why wouldn't it be good in 2015-16?

[Hugh Refner]

Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet will increase fouls, especially post play, by at least 25%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet will increase fouls, especially post play, by at least 25%.

Didn't the NCAA do this with womens basketball a few years ago? What was the result?

[crosscountry55]

Some of these suggested changes, like the wider lane, 6 PFs for DQ, advancing the ball on backcourt timeouts and the 10s backcourt count non-reset are pipe dreams until the NCAA adopts them first.

Adherence to the "rules changes trickle-down effect" is a tried and true method of the NFHS committee.

Yeah, except for maybe some definitions changes (SD, post-player, etc.) I see hardly any of these getting adopted. Except that maybe giving states the choice on shot clock use would be approved, because eight states already have them, and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.