Michigan testing 16 minute halves

[Bad Zebra]

What is the reason for the testing? Is the objective to shorten games? move to NCAA format? change something just for the sake of change? Where does the Fed come down on this topic?

I do some wreck ball that uses halves. It does seem to go quicker...but it's more challenging to coaches that like to rotate a lot of personnel. They seem to like the break between quarters to organize rotations. I think that's important at the HS level...being able to develop as many players as possible.

In the end, I don't think it makes much difference to officials...but I hate to see the HS game altered just because it looks good at a different level.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by SC Official

You must have missed the sarcastic tone and the winky face at the end of my post.

It's gotta be written in BLUE.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich

We're talking 4 minutes game time. 2 fewer quarter breaks. Evidence I've read is that games end on average earlier.

Sometimes we gotta pick our battles.

Interesting (to me) that NCAAW is going to quarters -- and one of the claims is that the games will be shorter (overall elapsed time).

I do agree that it's much ado about nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I do agree that it's much ado about nothing.

How about three periods for basketball, like ice hockey? They could use a Zamboni to clean the court during the two intermissions.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

You must have missed the sarcastic tone and the winky face at the end of my post.

There are a lot who are serious about this, though. And I could see fees going up eventually. But I can't be bothered to care much. If I cared about amount of money, I'd probably be doing something else.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

There are a lot who are serious about this, though.

Maybe like the coaches association of that state who originated the experimental effort.
And maybe the state who expects the schools involved to submit post-game reports on the experience.
Not, apparently, the officials who were never asked about it preliminarily and whose opinion after the fact isn't being sought.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. One fewer report to have to do.
Either way is ok with me. Don't perceive any difference in approach to officiating.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Don't perceive any difference in approach to officiating.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, public high school games are four, eight minute quarters, while private prep high schools have always played two, sixteen minute halves. Because my assignment commissioner knows that I like to work Saturdays, when most prep schools schedule games, I do more than my share of prep school games, so I feel competent to comment on the difference between officiating a game with quarters, and with halves.

I like the automatic break after an eight minute quarter. It gives me time to reflect on the first eight minutes, how the game is going, what I need to do differently, or better, and maybe to have a short meeting with my partner to discuss a few things.

Many prep school coaches like to save their timeouts for the second half, near the end of the game, so the first half of a prep school game is always an up, and down, affair; lead becomes trail, trail becomes lead; whistles for fouls, and violations; with no timeouts. The officials have to mentally, and physically, be "on" all the time. All of a sudden you look up at the scoreboard, to check the bonus situation, and note that there are only three minutes left in the first half, with no "time out" for a "mental break".

I prefer four quarters. Two halves wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but I would still prefer four quarters.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

There are a lot who are serious about this, though. And I could see fees going up eventually. But I can't be bothered to care much. If I cared about amount of money, I'd probably be doing something else.

I don't care much about this. But, at some point, the issue would matter. That point would vary from person to person depending on how much longer a game would be. At some point, it wouldn't be fair to ask officials to work for the same amount. In going to halves, there are two intermissions removed. Even if they add more timeouts, not all teams would take them, so, I'd guess the average game wouldn't really change much.

My biggest opposition (mild) is simply "Why"? There isn't a problem that needs fixing. I have not heard any arguments justifying the change aside from just changing. Don't fix what isn't broken.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

There are a lot who are serious about this, though. And I could see fees going up eventually. But I can't be bothered to care much. If I cared about amount of money, I'd probably be doing something else.

Game fees would only need to go up if the halves were longer than 16 minutes.

[Rich]

We're playing 18 in Wisconsin.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

We're playing 18 in Wisconsin.

Interesting that in MN and now WI, the choice has been made to disregard the NFHS and change to 18-min halves, yet in MI a formal request was made to play the game in 18-min halves and it was denied by the NFHS. I wonder why some states opt to ask permission and others act unilaterally?

As I understand it, the choice to act contrary to the NFHS comes at the cost of not being allowed to have a representative seat from your section on the rules committee. Guess what? Section 4 is currently represented by MI's Nate Hampton until 2018, so perhaps they didn't act unilaterally lest he would have lost his seat? Anyway, the price is small. The average section has six states. With four-year terms on the committee, that means a state has a vote (on average) 4 out of every 24 years. To put it another way, for 20 out of every 24 years states have nothing to lose by experimenting. Many have done so with the shot clock, and now apparently some are with halves and 36-min vice 32-min games.

I agree with the general feeling in this forum that this is all much ado about nothing. If anything, it just gives a few more individual statistical records a chance to be broken (more minutes = more stats).

[constable]

Some of our tournaments around here do 16 minute halves. It probably saves 4 minutes a game. When you're running on a tight schedule, that could make or break how on-time you are....or aren't...

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I like the automatic break after an eight minute quarter. It gives me time to reflect on the first eight minutes, how the game is going, what I need to do differently, or better, and maybe to have a short meeting with my partner to discuss a few things.

Many prep school coaches like to save their timeouts for the second half, near the end of the game, so the first half of a prep school game is always an up, and down, affair; lead becomes trail, trail becomes lead; whistles for fouls, and violations; with no timeouts. The officials have to mentally, and physically, be "on" all the time. All of a sudden you look up at the scoreboard, to check the bonus situation, and note that there are only three minutes left in the first half, with no "time out" for a "mental break".

I prefer four quarters. Two halves wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but I would still prefer four quarters.

From the NCAAW aspect of things I'm enjoying the switch to quarters for many of the reasons Billy has laid out. It's nice to have a minute - actually 75 seconds - to reflect on what happened and address issues with my partners. Also, even though I'm young at heart my legs have been known to feel their age from time to time. A built-in rest doesn't hurt.

Having the teams fouls reset has its merits, too. The 5th foul in the 1st and 3rd quarters can arrive quickly but at least I know after ten minutes we go back to zero again.

[walt]

JetMet I agree. NCAAW I like the quarters and the 75 sec break in between. I also like the option to advance although it does have some challenges in recognizing whether there was a dribble or pass while recognizing a coach at the opposite end of the floor calling time out. I found it leads to more communication for the crew which is not a bad thing.

In Delaware, DIAA has gone back and forth about playing halves v quarters but has decided to stay with whatever the NFHS decides. We are still fighting the 3 person v 2 person fight. The closest we've gotten is the assignor has discretion to assign 3 person where he/she deems necessary for the game. So, we have been gradually pushing up the number of three person games. Some schools are complaining but progress has been made.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

Walt-
Which part of DE do you serve? I spent 6.5 years in Wilmington in the mid 90's and Early 00's