NFHS questionnaire

[BryanV21]

I found it interesting when they asked if there were many blowouts (30+ point differences). Is some type of mercy rule in the works?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I found it interesting when they asked if there were many blowouts (30+ point differences). Is some type of mercy rule in the works?

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.

[BryanV21]

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.

My schedule this year was full of blowouts, so I may be biased for now, but I'd like to see some sort of mercy rule implemented. More often than not players who are on the losing end of these games "give up". In fact, I found out that one of the teams around here that are not good had 6 players quit the team before the end of the season.

Oh, and I'd like to see some sort of punishment for not complying with the fashion rules. Nothing too harsh, like an indirect T to the coach (mentioned in the questionnaire), but just something so we don't have to worry so much about it.

[SNIPERBBB]

There are already penatlies for uniform infractions...

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

There are already penatlies for uniform infractions...

You mean the "you can't play with that on" thing? I'm referring to things like undershirt and accessory colors. Not what's listed in 3-4, which can lead to a tech on the head coach.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

There are already penatlies for uniform infractions...

Penalties for Illegal Uniforms. Not for "improper accessories" (or whatever it's called)

[SNIPERBBB]

Not being allowed to play until corrected I would consider as a penalty

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Not being allowed to play until corrected I would consider as a penalty

Not one strong enough so that I haven't had to tell a number of players and coaches about illegal undershirts, leg sleeves, headbands, etc. I guess I wasn't clear enough about what penalties I was referring to.

You know what they say about assuming.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

There are already penatlies for uniform infractions...

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

[Welpe]

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.

We have the same and I've only seen it enacted twice this year in my games. 40 is too high.

I voted in favor of the two shot bonus with 5 fouls in a quarter and in favor of the shot clocks, which we use here. Going from no shot clock to shot clock has been a good change IMO.

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Pretty much. I hope they leave this alone. Being able to send players out or not allow them to enter is perfect.

[Jesse James]

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.

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.

[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.