Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals

[bballref3966]

Basketball rules committee talking points with Theresia Wynns, NFHS Director of Sports & Officials Education - cleveland.com

From cleveland.com.

I am in favor of 18-minute halves to keep the game moving and take away two intermissions where everyone is considered bench personnel. I am not in favor of a shot clock. My main reasons...

1) Check out the article on that link about the cost of shot clocks
2) It's not high school basketball's job to get its +/- 3 percent of future college players ready for the next level.
3) The game flows well enough without a shot clock, and it would put less skilled teams at a tremendous disadvantage.

[Nevadaref]

I would only favor the move to 18-minute halves if the officiating fees were to also increase by the same percentage (12.5%).

[JRutledge]

I would be an advocate of 18 minute halves as well for no other reason other than it could help the game. But I do not see pay increasing like that either, at least around here.

I still see no reason to have a shot clock in HS.

Peace

I would be willing to bet she misspoke and meant 16 minute halves.

[bballref3966]

I think the argument that the kids will get tired playing four more minutes is a little bit ridiculous. Four minutes more or less than 32 is not going to have a major impact on their fatigue. These kids want to be out there. Are we saying that we should limit the number of overtime periods to not tire the kids out? Basketball is innately a tiring activity, and upping the length of the game by four minutes will not make it a "more tiring" activity or more dangerous.

The other argument that I don't like is the one about kids getting done even later on a school night. If we take away two 1-plus minute intermissions by going to halves, that's a net addition of a mere two minutes, an extra four minutes of playing time minus at least two minutes of intermissions. If those two minutes are really that big of a concern, take less time in the locker room after the game.

I don't think these arguments should be reasons not to change to halves.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I think the argument that the kids will get tired playing four more minutes is a little bit ridiculous. Four minutes more or less than 32 is not going to have a major impact on their fatigue. These kids want to be out there. Are we saying that we should limit the number of overtime periods to not tire the kids out? Basketball is innately a tiring activity, and upping the length of the game by four minutes will not make it a "more tiring" activity or more dangerous.

The other argument that I don't like is the one about kids getting done even later on a school night. If we take away two 1-plus minute intermissions by going to halves, that's a net addition difference of a mere two minutes, an extra four minutes of playing time minus at least two minutes of intermissions. If those two minutes are really that big of a concern, take less time in the locker room after the game.

I don't think these arguments should be reasons not to change to halves.

The players may not get tired playing an extra four minutes but I sure will if I have to officiate an extra four minutes, especially on days when I do not get my pre-lunch nap and my post lunch nap.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would only favor the move to 18-minute halves if the officiating fees were to also increase by the same percentage (12.5%).

I'd be happy with an inflation increase every year.

As far as halves, if they go to 16 minute halves, I'd be fine. I just see this as yet another solution in search of a problem.

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I think the argument that the kids will get tired playing four more minutes is a little bit ridiculous. Four minutes more or less than 32 is not going to have a major impact on their fatigue. These kids want to be out there. Are we saying that we should limit the number of overtime periods to not tire the kids out? Basketball is innately a tiring activity, and upping the length of the game by four minutes will not make it a "more tiring" activity or more dangerous.

The other argument that I don't like is the one about kids getting done even later on a school night. If we take away two 1-plus minute intermissions by going to halves, that's a net addition of a mere two minutes, an extra four minutes of playing time minus at least two minutes of intermissions. If those two minutes are really that big of a concern, take less time in the locker room after the game.

I don't think these arguments should be reasons not to change to halves.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The players may not get tired playing an extra four minutes but I sure will if I have to officiate an extra four minutes, especially on days when I do not get my pre-lunch nap and my post lunch nap.

Not to mention getting in the bonus and double bonus more often, which further slows down the game and frustrates players and coaches.

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would be willing to bet she misspoke and meant 16 minute halves.

Who knows? 18 minute halves are used here in Minnesota and have been since the 2005-06 season. Don't know about official pay though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not to mention getting in the bonus and double bonus more often, which further slows down the game and frustrates players and coaches.

They can adjust just like they do at the college level. Not a big deal if you ask me.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Regarding FTs, one of the questions on the NCAAW rules survey this year concerns returning to 1+1 on the 7th foul with no double bonus.

Thoughts on this at the HS level?

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Regarding FTs, one of the questions on the NCAAW rules survey this year concerns either returning to 1+1 on the 7th foul with no double bonus.

Thoughts on this at the HS level?

Awful idea for game flow. No reason to just keep pounding until the bench is empty. I like the idea of triple bonus after 13.

[Rich]

I'd be thrilled to go to halves.

Give each team 5 timeouts as now. 1 60, 4 30s. First stoppage after 8:00 (16 minute halves) or 9:00 (18 minute halves) in each half becomes an uncharged 60 second timeout.

Things wouldn't change much, but we'd eliminate 2 last second shots, which is the best reason to go to halves, as far as I'm concerned.

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would be willing to bet she misspoke and meant 16 minute halves.

I am not sure she misspoke. In the NFHS survey this year, they had a question about 18 minutes halves. I was confused as to why it wasn't 16. I am not sure why they wouldn't go to 16 instead of 18, but hey, that's two places the NFHS has used the 18 minute half talk now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RefCT

I am not sure she misspoke. In the NFHS survey this year, they had a question about 18 minutes halves. I was confused as to why it wasn't 16. I am not sure why they wouldn't go to 16 instead of 18, but hey, that's two places the NFHS has used the 18 minute half talk now.

Once again, Minnesota went to 18 minute halves originally as an NF experimental rule. Minnesota like the rule and kept it. This has been several years this half proposal has been suggested as a new rule. It is not a new thing and of course has not passed. I actually do not see it passing this year either for the reasons we have stated like pay and players being tired. I guess we will see.

Peace