Notes from a recent ref clinic
 

Attended a ref clinic and heard a few surprising things:

1) One of the clinicians who specializes in "Two-Man" reffing told us/ advised us per the following: "...when you're in the L, don't be shy in closing down much closer when the ball goes into the low block post area opposite of the side that pertains to your primary coverage area." She suggested to us that although our PCA does not include the opposite side of the lane, we should close down closer in this area to get a better view of the matchup. Albeit, this is not the norm, she indicated that in today's NFHS level games, the players are so much better and offenses are so much more complex that it is easier of your partner in the T get 'stacked' and miss contact that occurs in post play.

2) A panel of clinician also told us that a "45 sec shot clock" is coming to NFHS games sooner rather than later.

In 2 man as lead, I have been going across the lane when there is active post play and the ball is on the side opposite from me. In cases where the endline is deep I step in and down several steps so that I can officiate the post play, but ideally I'm going over.

I may also go over if the ball is on that side of the floor with 8 players. Not fair to my partner to cover that much action and my coverage through the lane sucks.

Closing down closer but staying non-ballside will still get you stacked on the post players opposite. What she should have done is prescribed to you the "Two Person Ballside Mechanic" as in 2.3.3 of the NFHS Officials Manual, part of which reads:
"When the majority of players and the ball are on the Trail’s side of the
floor, below the free-throw line extended, the Lead should close-down
toward the near lane line and may move laterally to ball-side."
Quite similar to what the L would do in 3-person.
That's the solution for the problem cited.

Several years ago I was taught this as "pinching the paint." It wasn't a horrible technique, but I agree with the general sentiment that going over (a la three-person) is always better, provided there's a matchup to go officiate. Also, indeed the more skilled the players and/or complex the offenses, the less this makes sense because without a C to back you up, when the ball swings back you gotta high tail it back over, and that gets old really quick.

I hate two-person. :p

Seriously, that's the way they're going to introduce it? Use the old time standard that the NCAA used and abandoned years ago? Stupid. Just go with 30. How many HS offenses do you know that take 45 seconds to operate? I mean why even bother?

It isn't that good offenses take 45 seconds to operate. It is that some teams will not be able to get much going in 20 or 25. I don't think they want to create any more of a turnover-fest in those games than they already are.

Assuming it is true, it would seem they want to establish an upper limit to eliminate pure stall games where teams try to hold the ball for 2, 3, 4, or even more minutes. It wouldn't be so much about increasing the pace of play in the average game as the NBA and NCAA wish to do but prevent the nearly complete cessation of play in the few games that suffer from such play styles.

You have to be across and in position to officiate the play or you'll get straightlined. It's preferable to pinch the paint than to try to get across to the closed down position and get there too late and miss everything as it goes in front of you.

And that's true for 2-person as well as 3-person.

I still contend this is a solution in search of a problem. How many of these games have any of us encountered? I have seen it maybe twice in 15 years. Where is it occurring in such great numbers that a major national rule change has to be implemented?

It occurs a few times a year. Perhaps most prominently was the Oregon Girls 5A championship game in 2012. 4-0 at half and 16-7 at the end. It was not because they missed a lot of shots. It was because they didn't take a lot of shots. They are essentially scared of Mercedes Russell (Mercedes Russell Bio - University of Tennessee Official Athletic Site) and decided this was the only chance they had to beat her. It was an absolutely horrible game to watch and I'm sure the players really hated it to. Imagine making it to a state championship final and spending it standing around for 30 minutes. What kind of memories are those? Maybe if they'd won, but that was still a long shot.

Box Score: Oregon & Portland High School Girls Basketball - OregonLive.com

The solution for defending against a team that plays stall ball is simple: stop sitting back and come out to force a closely guarded count.

IAABO Lead Ballside Mechanic ...
 

Is this what we're discussing (below, left side of diagram)?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/771/20...5b5dff59_m.jpg

Caption (Left): To improve coverage, Lead may move to ballside by applying A, B, C technique. Lead shall not move to ballside during a try for goal or a drive to basket.

Why should they? The defending team might be happy with the other team not even trying to score. Isn't defense's primary goal to prevent the other team from scoring?

In the case of the Oregon game I referred to, the defending team was ahead and were probably going to win no matter how the game was played since they had a player the other team just couldn't match up with. They didn't need possession. If there were to dramatically spread out trying to cover the ball at the division line, that could give the other team the lucky opportunity they wanted.

I'm not a huge fan of a shot clock for HS, but if anything is to be done to prevent multi-minute stalls, it has to be a shot clock.

Agreed, completely. Camron noted it happens a few times a year. That's nationwide, not for each official. A few times per year, across the nation, does not warrant such a major rule change.

The games that are all out stalls may only happen a couple of times a year or may only be published when its a dramatic less then 10 pts combined scored.

I can tell you when I worked games in Maine that all out stall wasn't common, but if you had foul trouble in the 2nd quarter, or the other team wanted to pack/play zone, or it was the fourth quarter and you were up 6+ there might not have been an all out stall but there is a lot of pull back out, keep reversing the ball, etc. In those situations its basically standard practice to make sure possessions are taking 60-90-120 seconds of offense.

The all out stalls might be rare but how teams play/try to score is definitely impacted in almost every game I officiated (without a shot clock) by situations that went from teams actively trying to compete and give kids chances to make play to totally coach controlled and tactics that led to really really long possessions.

There are a fair of games where a team holds the ball the last 60 or 90 seconds of a quarter. As a fan, that's a lot of dead time to watch. A shot clock, even a 45 second one, addresses that to a certain degree.

We're going to 2 halves this fall - one of the reasons given was to have fewer end-of-quarter stalling opportunities.

True, but with a financial impact to many schools that might otherwise never face the problem designed to be solved. Not to mention now you'd need to train/employ shot clock operators, a job that requires more focus than the timer. I have enough problems with timers as it is.

If we're gonna do it to prevent stalling, let's set it at 30 or 35 and spice up the game at the same time. Either way you achieve the primary objective of preventing stalls, assuming that even is the primary objective.

Then again, I concede it's easy to shorten the SC once the infrastructure is already in place. You know the NFHS; they love their little bitty incremental changes. :)