NFHS questionnaire

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

30 is too low. We've had state tournament games lately where a team down 26 in the 3rd won by 1 in regulation, and a team down 30 in the 3rd, and 26 w/6 min. to play, lose by four.

Maybe it's not 30--but it's too close to ruin those kind of finishes.

If they're going to go fourth quarter only, then I think 30 is fine. At that point, probably 25 would be fine.

[Rich]

I don't know why so many officials have a thing about coaches calling time outs. Forcing players to call timeouts during live balls would be the biggest step backwards, IMO. Some of us here actually officiated back when this was the rule.

A coach wants a timeout. You know that. Now you gotta find a player who's ALSO asking for a timeout in order to grant it. Idiotic, just idiotic....mainly because too many officials lack situational awareness.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Rich

A coach wants a timeout. You know that. Now you gotta find a player who's ALSO asking for a timeout in order to grant it. Idiotic, just idiotic....mainly because too many officials lack situational awareness.

As someone who hates coaches calling time outs: With players only calling (as it was when I played) it's the responsibility of the players to get the official's attention, not the responsibility of the official to find the player. The official shouldn't care or be paying attention to what the coach wants.

From the comfort of the stands, it seems to me the coach TO is destructive -- coaches become irate that they haven't been seen and referees seem to have much more difficulty telling "which came first" with respect to violations or held balls when it involved a coach TO than a player -- I suspect because they are often in opposite directions. (And it may also be that it often looks like the referee got it wrong because folks in the stands don't see when the coach asked.)

Give the game back to the players -- permit fewer TOs and only let players call, er, request them. YMMV. (Heck I also wouldn't mind going back to the rule that there can't be TO after 80% of a count has expired, though I imagine that one was a nightmare to administrate, especially when the request went to an official not responsible for the count at the time.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

As someone who hates coaches calling time outs: With players only calling (as it was when I played) it's the responsibility of the players to get the official's attention, not the responsibility of the official to find the player. The official shouldn't care or be paying attention to what the coach wants.

From the comfort of the stands, it seems to me the coach TO is destructive -- coaches become irate that they haven't been seen and referees seem to have much more difficulty telling "which came first" with respect to violations or held balls when it involved a coach TO than a player -- I suspect because they are often in opposite directions. (And it may also be that it often looks like the referee got it wrong because folks in the stands don't see when the coach asked.)

Give the game back to the players -- permit fewer TOs and only let players call, er, request them. YMMV. (Heck I also wouldn't mind going back to the rule that there can't be TO after 80% of a count has expired, though I imagine that one was a nightmare to administrate, especially when the request went to an official not responsible for the count at the time.)

I do 50-60 varsity games a year and this simply isn't a problem in games I work. All my games are 3-person, however, and maybe this is a bigger problem in 2-person games.

But I think you're just kicking the can here -- you won't notice the kid quickly enough, you'll still have the difficulty of knowing which came first, etc.

As someone who's worked a ton of games under both systems, I much prefer giving the head coach the ability to call a timeout. Typically I know when he/she is going to want one and I have an eye in his direction. Doesn't mean I lose track of what happens on the floor, not at all.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

What does this mean? What does the second part of this change--one-and-one at 5 and one-and-one at 7?

1. Beginning with a team’s fifth foul in each quarter, shoot one-and-one; and for the seventh foul, award a bonus free throw only if the first free throw is successful.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

1. What the heck is meant by "Would you favor, beginning with a team’s fifth foul in each quarter, shoot one-and-one; and for the seventh foul, award a bonus free throw only if the first free throw is successful?" Huh? Aren't those two things the same?

The intent of the wording is to say beginning at 5, and including 7 team fouls to shoot 1-1, and then shoot 2 shots on the 8th team foul. Agreed that there is a simpler way to word that, but that was what they meant.

[jamesshank]

Originally Posted by Rich

We have a 40 minute running clock with 9 minutes left in the second half (essentially a "4th quarter" if we played quarters).

Funny, we just talked about this the other night. 40 is too high a threshold, IMO. It should be 30 and it should be the entire second half. Nobody's coming back from 30 down.

Washington state has a 2nd half running clock mercy rule if the differential is 40. Running clock continues regardless of score; only spots on timeouts and free throws. Works well I think.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by jamesshank

Washington state has a 2nd half running clock mercy rule if the differential is 40. Running clock continues regardless of score; only spots on timeouts and free throws. Works well I think.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Similar in Wyoming, although we don't stop on Free Throws. If it's at the end of the 4th quarter and we have free throws, they count if they are shot in time, but otherwise when the buzzer sounds, game over.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yeah, you add a technical foul to the mix and no one will ever enforce it.

Exactly. Some officials won't enforce uniform rules as it is at the risk of making coaches upset. They really won't enforce it when they have to seatbelt the coach before the game starts.

Originally Posted by Jesse James

30 is too low. We've had state tournament games lately where a team down 26 in the 3rd won by 1 in regulation, and a team down 30 in the 3rd, and 26 w/6 min. to play, lose by four.

Maybe it's not 30--but it's too close to ruin those kind of finishes.

I have never seen a mercy rule game get closer than 20 once it hits a 30-point spread. Ours is 30 in the 4th quarter but it stops if the lead gets back under 30. I would change it to run it once it hits 30 in the 4th quarter and it never stops no matter what the score is.

I love the two FTs on the 5th foul of any quarter and reset the team fouls after each quarter.

I don't want a shot clock. Aside from the cost, getting someone to run it reliably would be a disaster.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Wow. How many different ways could they word the free throw count/quarter thing??

My guess is they wanted to validate their question for consistency of answers. Which could mean they are more serious about making this change then others. But I might be reading into that.

[SC Official]

Please please please NFHS...

1) Implement or at least allow two-handed reporting.
2) Let the players roll their damn shorts and wear the fancy headbands.
3) Expand the coaching box to 28 feet.
4) Get rid of the seatbelt rule.

I know I'm dreaming.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich

I do 50-60 varsity games a year and this simply isn't a problem in games I work. All my games are 3-person, however, and maybe this is a bigger problem in 2-person games.

But I think you're just kicking the can here -- you won't notice the kid quickly enough, you'll still have the difficulty of knowing which came first, etc.

As someone who's worked a ton of games under both systems, I much prefer giving the head coach the ability to call a timeout. Typically I know when he/she is going to want one and I have an eye in his direction. Doesn't mean I lose track of what happens on the floor, not at all.

I can tell you it's a problem in 2-person games. When the rotation has lead table-side and trail opposite it can be difficult to hear a coach over the crowd and if we're doing our jobs properly, we're not looking in the general area of the coach who is usually no where near either of our PCAs.

Unfortunately, this lead to a T in one of my games this year where we didn't hear the coach right away and she decided the best use of the timeout once she got it was to berate my partner for not giving it sooner.

I did games back when the coaches couldn't call them too. It didn't seem that big of a deal to me back then, but admittedly, I was pretty wet behind the ears those days.

[stripes]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Please please please NFHS...

1) Implement or at least allow two-handed reporting.
2) Let the players roll their damn shorts and wear the fancy headbands.
3) Expand the coaching box to 28 feet.
4) Get rid of the seatbelt rule.

I know I'm dreaming.

I agree with all of this. Eliminate all of the "fashion" rules. Who cares?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

I do 50-60 varsity games a year and this simply isn't a problem in games I work. All my games are 3-person, however, and maybe this is a bigger problem in 2-person games.

But I think you're just kicking the can here -- you won't notice the kid quickly enough, you'll still have the difficulty of knowing which came first, etc.

As someone who's worked a ton of games under both systems, I much prefer giving the head coach the ability to call a timeout. Typically I know when he/she is going to want one and I have an eye in his direction. Doesn't mean I lose track of what happens on the floor, not at all.

I almost always know when a coach will want to take a time out. This just isn't a problem for me. There's absolutely no reason to not allow a coach to call for a time out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Please please please NFHS...

1) Implement or at least allow two-handed reporting.
2) Let the players roll their damn shorts and wear the fancy headbands.
3) Expand the coaching box to 28 feet.
4) Get rid of the seatbelt rule.

I know I'm dreaming.

Regarding 4: I like the added incentive to behave that the seatbelt rule provides.

[Rich]

Most times in the games I work a technical foul ends the behavior that earned the coach one in the first place.

I don't know if that would be the case if the coach didn't have to sit afterwards. I don't have much data on that since I only work a few junior college games a year and can only remember 1 head coach technical in those over the past 7-8 years.