View Single Post
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 29, 2018, 05:17pm
ilyazhito ilyazhito is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams View Post
From the frozen tundra north of the frozen tundra, different regions use different rule sets with most using FIBA rules, but some using NFHS or NFHS based rule sets.

All of the adoptions and adaptations for the youth levels make sense to me.

The difficulty with discussing the shot clock implementation with officials is that in terms of impact as officials it is definitely more work and complication, as a fan/lover of the game we each have our own opinions on whats "best" for the game, and developmental models for athletes/healthy lifstyle, Long Term Athlete Development are furthest away from most officials on a hierarchy of relevance/importance.

While to some extent the shot clock can do all the positive and negatives that people are expressing (full disclosure we play full FIBA rules with players as young as 14, modifications to shot clock timing and rules below that). The change that it makes most is the way that coaches coach and develop players. Along with the other FIBA rules re:timeouts, closely guarded etc. it develops a game that is more player driven and less coach driven. All/more of the players on the floor have to be defenders, shot makers, ball handlers, and decision makers and able to better play out of random or broken situations as the clock creates more and more of these situations. Coaching players to be universal and create is definitely a move away coach controlled, tactics heavy basketball, but it also allows for a different (you have to decide better or not) experience for the all of the players involved in terms of development, skill sets required and what their playing and practice experience looks like. More shots, more touches, more plays, more breakdowns, more creativity, more skills, more players playing, more opportunities, etc is generally equated to more fun and "better" experience by a majority of sport stakeholders (players, parents, etc)

As an official I don't have a horse in the race, but I can tell based on my experience. THe nights I have to work games without shot clocks in Maine or at a summer/youth tournament are now the games I dread now.
Does the FIBA manual require a visible 8-second count or is the shot clock the official record of the 8-second count? I've read the August 2017 FIBA Interpretations document, and the situations that deal with the 8-second count all seem to indicate that the 8 second count only would reset if the shot clock resets to 24.

In NCAA and NBA rules, the backcourt count is not visible, because the shot clock determines the backcourt count (NCAA Men adds timeouts to the list of times that the count resets, and the NBA also has some exceptions (jump ball controlled in backcourt, infection control, or a throw-in into the backcourt)). The only time that a visible backcourt count is used (in NCAA), is when the shot clock is off.

If FIBA uses a non-visible count (there are no references to doing an 8-second count in the 2015 updates to the basic FIBA 3-man manual), it would make sense to adopt FIBA rules in the US as well, at least for ease of officiating. It would be very interesting to see high school, college, and professional players playing the same brand of basketball throughout their careers, and would create some consistency for officials moving up from one level of play to another, rather than requiring them to learn disparate sets of rules and mechanics for each level.
Reply With Quote