NFHS questionnaire
 

Interesting possible proposals this year.

Provide link, please.

Sorry, we must have posted at the same time. Feel free to delete mine.

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

I think we can expect movement on the rolled-waistband front.

As we've gone to 18-minute halves here, all of the questions on quarter-based bonus systems have come a bit late for us.

No way in hell should the game move to 20-minute halves. Personally, I don't get why we're playing 18 here instead of 16. For every game where you get 4 extra minutes of great hoops, you get 10 others that should end 4 minutes earlier.

(Personally, I'd love to go to NCAAW - 5 fouls per quarter, shoot 2. Eliminate the 1-and-1.)

Let them roll the waistband. Shorts are too long.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I wouldnt mind some admin T's here for apparel that isnt dangerous but the nfhs doesnt seem to want to do the bifurcation needed to make this work

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

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.

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

It's gotten a little better this year, but it's still there.:(

Perhaps it's been talked about enough that it's simply accepted by now, but I can't help but feel the "they won't call it if the penalty is too harsh" thing is rubbish.

Why change a rule simply because it's not being handed out correctly or consistently? How about teaching officials to do their jobs and do what the rule book says? This reeks of the inmates running the asylum. Isn't that what points of emphasis are for?

Look how many times they've changed the penalry for non contact swinging elbows and leaving the court.

How is that a response to the post you quoted? Does it mean you don't feel the need to follow the rule book because there's a decent chance the rule will change in a few years?

Hell, Bob's post about providing a link was so he could see the questionnaire.

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.

That was a forum bug.

I didnt make that point because it was good or bad. There was a reason why those rules were changed because it wasn't enforced as written.

Several years ago when the the leaving the court T, we had the guy that im certain was single handedly responsible for getting rule changed to a violation. He called 18 T's for leaving the court in a single game.

We have mercy rule in Iowa. 35+ points is running clock unless losing team gets it below 20. It is wonderful.

Just my 2 pennies:

1) Rolled waistbands have no effect on me.

2) Anything to make it more like college is good (coach can't call TO during live ball, shot clock, etc.)

3) Mercy rule should be left up to state associations.

4) All undergarments/sleeves/wrist&headbands/etc. should be either white or black. White if home and black if visitor.

5) Eliminate jump ball, captain's meeting, and jacket requirement for officials.

6) Reduce timeouts by one full.

7) Require officials' shoes to be ALL black and eliminate rules that are never enforced. :)

I am surprised there is so much interest in tweaking uniform rules here. Haven't we learned in recent years how frustrating annual changes can be? If it's not a safety issue, just LITFA, IMHO. That said, this year was the easiest I've ever had enforcing uniform rules. Some officials in the area still seem to think the T-shirt rule is tied to the bands/tights/sleeves rule, but other than that enforcement has been easy and consistent...and coaches and players have adapted. Some teams have even gone away from accessories altogether because it's too hard and expensive for teams to all get on the same page. I think this may have been a subtly desired outcome by the committee.

In other thoughts about the survey:

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? :confused: Aren't those two things the same?

2. Why in the world would you ask, "Would you favor initiating 30-second shot clock for boys and 35-second shot clock for girls?" First of all, that's the opposite of the way it used to be in college and currently still is in CA. Second, if the NCAA has had the common sense to use the same shot clock time for both men and women, why in the world can't the NFHS? And lastly, asking the question in this form forces me to choose a yes or no answer for elements of a question that don't mesh with the underlying core question, which is, "Would you favor initiating a shot clock....period!?"

3. Why isn't there a section for free text comments at the end of the survey? I would have loved to have clarified a few things, such as:
a) I answered that I have not observed two-handed reporting in my area. That's because we have very disciplined officials here who follow the manual. I never got the chance to articulate that even though I haven't seen it doesn't mean I wouldn't LOVE to be able to use two-handed reporting. Furthermore, I didn't get the chance to describe how in the youth games in which I use two- handed reporting, no table has ever NOT been able to understand what I was doing.
b) How the real question is whether we should have a shot clock or not at all (see above).
c) Etc., etc.

Would it kill the NFHS to hire a professional program evaluator (I'm sure there's one out there somewhere who also happens to be an official) to create and administer these annual surveys? They are SO flawed....makes me cringe.

Probably written by the same person that wrote the TC rule change.

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.

Ah. I should have figured it was something like that.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Shot clock is really hard to administer with two officials. In Minnesota, most games outside the metro are still two officials.

I hate babysitting coaches, and that includes the seatbelt rule. Especially for indirect T's. I don't think making coaches sit because of the way their bench acts is necessary-this coming from someone who does not put up with BS from assistants.

At least for SC, if the $300 fine and suspension aren't enough of a deterrent from poor behavior, the seatbelt rule isn't going to do anything. If more T's happen because of no seatbelt rule, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Just toss the coach if he continues to act up after the first T. Force the coach to be in control of his own behavior, standing or sitting.

WHAT???? That is remarkably awesome.

As long as officials aren't avoiding TCB because of their knowledge of the fine that will result, I have no problem with the process.

My experience in other states that fine coaches is that associations and officials took more crap because they were aware of the fine and didn't want to appear heavy handed.

(If there's a fine for a single technical foul, that's ludicrous, IMO.)

I find it hard to believe that Wisconsin has gone from way behind most everyone in implementing 3-person officiating to almost 100% at the varsity level.....and other places are still using 2 officials.

I'm thankful, but find it hard to believe.

I am working 3 youth games on Saturday morning 2-person (5 minutes from home, $35, games on the hour) and I wonder how many times I'll forget to look in the corner or go opposite as the L on free throws.

OnTopic: I think the shot clock is an unneeded expense and should be left up to the states by the NFHS.)

The fine is for getting ejected.

And I agree with you on TCB. I've encountered more than one official who won't toss coaches because of the fine, but overall I think the fine and suspension do a pretty decent job of curtailing the behavior.

OT: One coach a couple weeks ago got whacked in the first quarter. Last couple minutes of the game he went apes*it and got tossed, charging after the ejecting official. He got suspended for the rest of the season by the district and ended up resigning.

Wow...

I've ejected 2 coaches in 30 years. One was in year 4 or 5 and one was in year 9 or 10. It's been that long. One JV head coach who followed me to the locker room at HALFTIME (I told him to stay in the locker room) and one Christian (non-affiliated) HS head coach.

Probably one we should've run about 10 years ago here, but he was the one I let get away (with it).

Stuff like that just shouldn't happen much in HS hoops.

Rich what was said/done with these to push you to ejection?

The varsity one was a second technical foul. The first came on the first foul of the game where my partner called a block and the coach came up off his seat onto the court and started screaming at him and quickly picked up a technical foul. I sent him packing when he started in on me in the second quarter and persisted even though I warned him and probably warned him again.

The JV one -- he got a technical foul in the first half and when we were walking to the locker room he "jumped" us and started telling us how horrible we were. I gave him one chance to walk away, then I told him he was ejected. Long time ago now and I probably was a lot worse than I am now, but still...

Wouldn't the official warning just end up being like an unpunished 3rd technical foul. I'm not a fan of that one.

Don't like halves. Men's college is the only basketball that uses it and I hope they switch in the not too distant future.

Would love a shot clock.
Would love fouls reset at quarters and shoot at 5.
Don't need any more technical fouls added to the books, especially for clothing.

And, even though it wasn't asked I'll chime in on the seatbelt. Get rid of it. It's not enforced around here anyway - not with any consistency.

Thanks for sharing

Good luck collecting the $300 fine.

Respectfully: You think the threat of ejection isn't incentive enough? I'm with SC Official on this one (fine or no fine). I hate the seatbelt rule.

I don't mind halves, but I like what NCAA-W has done with quarters and two shots at five. Prevents a lot of rough play on the front end of 1-and-1s. So if remaining at or reverting to quarters in order to employ this bonus scheme, I'm all for it.

Agree, but I'm with Rich in that this should be a state-by-state adoption, formally endorsed by NFHS as an option. There are some places where it just wouldn't be necessary; very few of the possessions I've seen this year have been of the "delay" variety. For those states that do add the SC, I wouldn't mind a multi-year phasing-in period so that states/schools have time to plan for funding of the new equipment and rules modifications.

Agree.

And lastly, I'm going to respectfully disagree with Rich on the coach TO issue. I concur that I usually know when to anticipate a TO call by the coach, and with three of us on the floor, at least one of us will usually get it right away. But there are occasional times when we just don't see or hear the request, and then the coach blames us and things get testy. I also hate when, on a loose ball, I have to figure out player control while a voice behind me---who is usually the HC but sometimes isn't---is calling for TO, and process all of that information in less than a second. I'd rather I just have to get the TO request from a player in my field of vision.

It appears as if you are breaking up your posts in hopes of avoiding the $10 fine for excessive words in a post. :) I suppose i won't ever be able to collect that either…

On a serious note, i'm ok with the seatbelt rule simply because so many coaches want to stand all the time. It's just another reminder that they need to modify their behavior or go start the bus.

In VA, the school gets a $500 fine when a coach gets ejected. Many schools make the coach pay it.

I would love for HS to get rid of the seat belt rule and go to a 28' coaching box. I would pull the trigger on a lot more T's by lowering my threshold for bullcrap. Then the coaches could go about their business of coaching their teams and I wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they were standing or sitting. The more freedoms the coaches have, the less feeling of angst I feel in popping them.

I guess part of my liking the seat belt rule is that i come from a place where the coach would say "i coached Monday through Thursday. They know what to do." I'm fine with coaches standing and coaching. Some though, maybe many, try to become part of the game….put on show for themselves etc…

I guess i would add that it doesn't even enter my mind that if i call a T the coach will have to sit. I just don't care about that. Now after he's got one i certainly want to be sure that if he's going to get another one its going to be obvious to everyone.

There's still a few varsity games in the Twin Cities metro that are 2-person for varsity... I've got one tonight in fact. But two-person varsity is down to basically small charter schools (and one conference that only uses 3-person "sometimes", but at least one of the coaches in that league is pushing for 3-person for every game).

Outstate... I've heard tell that some areas literally don't have enough officials for three-person games at the varsity level (mainly in the northern part of the state), but that's all hearsay on my end.


Regarding a shot clock... NO. No need. I haven't specifically kept track, but from what I can remember in my games this year, there's only been a handful of possessions, maybe 5 total, where we would've had a 30-second shot-clock violation. Most high school kids aren't patient enough to have an entire possession last 30 seconds, even when they should be trying to delay.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

Many are commenting on the "seatbelt rule".

I thought that most states went to the coaching box when it was offered as an option many years ago? Are there still states where the coach has to be seated 95% of the game, only rising to call timeouts, congratulate players, ask about a correctable error, etc.?

Or by "seatbelt rule", are Forum members talking about the removal of coaching box privilege after a coach is charged with a technical foul?

This

The Kindness Of Strangers ...
 

Thank you.

Are there any states that do not use the coaching box?

Isn't it already? The fact that some states use it and some states don't, doesn't that mean that it already is a state-by-state adoption?

Heard about a game that was 25-25 at end of regulation. Team A, who was responsible for this ridiculousness, got the tip and held it the entire OT for one last shot. They missed it.

Not endorsed as an option. In fact, states that use it forfeit their seats on the rules committee.

I've had 25-25 scores for teams that were trying to score!! I am surprised about the OT tactic though, it seems to me that any time a team is trying to stall, they inevitably turn it over if the possession is longer than about 45 seconds or so.

Most likely Team B was just as responsible because they played passive defense.

I'm not sure I could handle games without a shot clock, I've had them in the past and they are sllllooooowwww.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I agree with most except they should shrink the coaching box[emoji12]

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

The numbers don't bear this out. The 25-25 games are a rarity, and most games keep a reasonable pace. I personally wouldn't mind the NFHS making it a valid option, but I'd vote against it in my state if given the chance. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Hell, my game tonight was 17-10 at halftime, and ended with a final score in the neighborhood of 38-30. And they were trying to score, it was just a defensive struggle (I think there were at least 15 blocked shots).

There was a boys state final here a few years ago that went to something like 4 overtimes, and in each overtime the team that won the toss held the ball for the first 3:50 of the overtime period. And this was a game between two of the largest schools in the state.

Even with that, I still don't think we need a shot clock.

Not really sure what you mean by this. The SCHSL has its flaws, but fine collection is not one of them. Any coach or AD with half a brain is well aware of this penalty.

I was talking about the guy who got suspended and then resigned. Did they really maintain jurisdiction over him after he left so that they could collect?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Solution:

The rules already allow the coaches, by agreement with the Referee (in Varsity games) to shorten the length of a quarter.

So, when one team is holding, and the other is playing back, the coaches negotiate a shorter quarter (say :30), the R agrees, the timer sets the clock and re-starts it.

That should have happened. There's no reason for everyone to stand around with their hands in their pocket for 3:50.

What is the incentive for coaches to agree on reducing the time in the quarter?

Better hourly pay?

*ahhh OK, you're right, I should've thought of that before I posted my Q!

they don't like standing around for 3.5 minutes any more than we do.

In all seriousness, what is the process for this? Can the coaches yell at each other during a live ball, "Hey, want to just go with 2:00 minutes?" Or does this have to be brought to our attention during a quarter break, or official time out, or what? I imagine this is rare enough that I don't need to worry about it, but just curious-

There is no procedure for this. I was proposing one (without, I admit, many of the details.)

Would this be during live play or would you re-start the 30 seconds with a throw-in?

Here are the rules changes proposals.

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. -- No. This is dumb, no other rule set does this.

2. Beginning with the eighth foul of each quarter, awarding two free-throw bonus. -- Also dumb, not other rule set does this

3. Starting a quarter – with the exception of overtime period – with team fouls at zero. -- Sure, assuming we shoot two shots on either 5th or 6th foul of quarter.

4. Assessing an administrative technical foul to the offending team for violation of the uniform, apparel, equipment and logo/trademark reference rules. -- No, currently rules are fine. Don't need to piss off coaches more.

5. Switching colored uniforms to the home team and white for the visitor. -- No. Why would this be a good idea?

6. Extending the correctable error rule to two dead balls after the error. -- Sure why not

7. Allowing officials to stop the clock and give an official warning, which is recorded in the scorebook, for unsportsmanlike behavior by the coach or team bench, when the offense falls below the threshold for a technical foul. After the official warning, any further issues result in a technical foul. -- Sure, gives officials another tool to manage coaches.

8. Allowing players to wear a bandanna style (tied) headband provided it meets color and width requirements. -- Sure, they allow it in the college game and there is no real safety issue.

9. Extending the optional coaching box to the end line (28 feet). -- Yes, but stress the importance of staying in the box to the coaches and allow officials to call a 1-shot POI technical for coaching box violations.

10. Beginning each quarter with team fouls at zero and start shooting bonus one-and-one at five fouls and bonus two shots at seven fouls in each quarter. -- No. Not sure how this is different from the ones above.

11. Reducing the number of time-outs from three 60-second and two 30-second time-outs to two 60-second and two 30-second time-outs per game. (Add one 30-second to overtime) -- No. Timeouts are fine as they are.

12. Initiating 30-second shot clock for boys and 35-second shot clock for girls. -- Yes to shot clock but it should be the same for boys and girls. 30 seconds.

13. Changing game from four quarters to two 20-minute halves (keep the bonus at seven team fouls, one-and-one, and 10 team fouls for two shots). --Hell no.

14. Charging an indirect technical to the head coach for any illegal uniforms or illegal apparel: headbands, wristbands, arm or leg compression sleeves. -- No. Current rules are fine and we don't need to piss off coaches more

15. Eliminating the bonus and shooting two free throws after the fifth foul in each quarter – with the foul count restarting in each quarter. -- Heck yes. Or we could make it after the 6th foul

16. Reducing time-outs by one. -- Not necessary

17. Beginning with the seventh team foul in each quarter, award a two-shot free-throw penalty, and erase team fouls beginning in each quarter. -- No

18. Eliminating closely guarded count during a live dribble in the frontcourt or backcourt. -- Yes, but only if we have a shot clock.

19. Eliminating time-outs granted to coaches during a live ball. -- Not really necessary or a good idea IMO

For #9, would this lead to a bigger rule change? (I.e., other technical fouls that would be a Class B tech and only 1 FT) Also, would this then come with a coach losing the box or, are we eliminating the seatbelt rule with extension of the box? Finally, Would a 1 shot POI T count the same as a Direct to the HC for the purposes of DQ?

For #18, that's a great point, I hadn't thought about it before, but if there is a shot clock, then I absolutely think that the 5 second dribbling count should be eliminated.

What are the reasons the coaches box should be extended? Honestly asking, because my initial thought is "no".

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Around here, most let them go to the end line if they're coaching. The second they start barking at us, they get one warning to get back in the box and if they say another word out of the box, they get served some tea. I don't like how lenient we are, but I'm a little fish so I go with the flow. Not sure what benefit there would be to extending it.

I'm the same way. I'm OK with them going out of the box until they start in on us.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The T could initiate this conversation during live ball.

To the front court coach, "The rules allow us to shorten the quarter if you both agree. I'm thinking maybe 60 seconds if you agree."

If he agrees, back up to the backcourt coach, keeping your eye on the ball handler and ask the other coach.

As bob says, there's no prescribed method, because the occurrence is so rare.

He's still a teacher at the school, so either he's paying it or the school is. But no one's getting off the hook from the SCHSL.

*I hope they keep this rule in place; it compels coaches to teach their players good defensive posture, develops focus in defensive stance and lateral foot work, provides teams with a means of gaining more possessions, and overall adds to the quality of the game. I called this violation several times this season and look fwd to continued emphasis on this rule.