USA Basketball Recommendations.

[LRZ]

HS shot clocks and kiddie-height baskets/smaller basketballs are very different issues.

I like the idea of lower baskets and smaller basketballs for little kids. I've ref'ed enough games with scores like 12-4, and making it easier to shoot and score would make for better skills development and thus better games, imo.

Shot clocks seem to me a solution in search of a problem. Nothing wrong with basketball being a game of tactics and strategy. Spread offense, running the clock? Learn to trap, force turnovers.

[todd66]

Could not agree with LRZ more. Do not change the essence of the game. Make the changes that will instill proper mechanics and promote playing the game fundamentally.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by LRZ

HS shot clocks and kiddie-height baskets/smaller basketballs are very different issues.

I like the idea of lower baskets and smaller basketballs for little kids. I've ref'ed enough games with scores like 12-4, and making it easier to shoot and score would make for better skills development and thus better games, imo.

Shot clocks seem to me a solution in search of a problem. Nothing wrong with basketball being a game of tactics and strategy. Spread offense, running the clock? Learn to trap, force turnovers.

Agree on the lower baskets and smaller balls.

With all due respect, I disagree on shot clocks. I believe that a shot clock SHOULD be adopted, and not for the strategic reasons that many coaches want it for. A shot clock should reduce deliberate (note: not intentional, because that is a specific term in the rules) fouls at the end of the game, because fouling actually creates a disadvantage for the fouling team. Fouling does stop the clock, but the shot clock will reset, giving the offense a new possession and a better chance to run out the shot (or game, depending on time remaining) clock.

If teams do not foul near the end of the game, we as officials do not have to guess on which deliberate fouls to rule as intentional fouls, and which deliberate fouls to rule as common fouls. This will eliminate the need for NFHS to constantly put intentional fouls as a point of emphasis every year, because intentional fouls would then only happen in excessive contact/dangerous play situations, or if a player did not try to play the ball. In addition, fewer fouls would mean a safer game, because players who are not fouled will not be as likely to retaliate or talk trash to other players. Officials' jobs would be easier, because they will not have to rule every touch as a foul in the last few minutes, as is currently the accepted practice in non-shot clock games.

I may have limited experience as a basketball official (3 years overall, 1 season at the high school sub-varsity level), but I have worked games both with and without the shot clock, and have noticed that teams who play with a shot clock play basketball throughout all 32 minutes of the game, instead of just for 28 minutes. I have also noticed fewer deliberate fouls with a shot clock than without a shot clock in my games, whether in boys or girls games, whether in urban public school games or private school games.

A 30-second shot clock would be the easiest to use for high school games, because a visible 10-second count would not be required (if the official sees that the ball is still in the backcourt with 20 seconds on the shot clock, there is a violation) while the shot clock is on. This would free the official to concentrate on a wider area of the court in transition. This is why I would recommend a 30-second shot clock for high school play. If high school chose to go with a 24-second shot clock, then a visual count would be needed, because the FIBA/NBA backcourt count is 8 seconds, not 10.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

A 30-second shot clock would be the easiest to use for high school games, because a visible 10-second count would not be required (if the official sees that the ball is still in the backcourt with 20 seconds on the shot clock, there is a violation) while the shot clock is on. This would free the official to concentrate on a wider area of the court in transition. This is why I would recommend a 30-second shot clock for high school play. If high school chose to go with a 24-second shot clock, then a visual count would be needed, because the FIBA/NBA backcourt count is 8 seconds, not 10.

Why would it matter? 24 second clock, the violation occurs at 14 (or 16 if you have an 8 second count). Regardless of the starting point of the clock and the length of the count, I'd hope that most officials would be able to recognize whatever time it is that creates the violation.

That said, I think 30 is way too short for many HS games. 30 would be fine for upper level varsity, but a lot of teams just don't have the skill to make it a good game with a 30 second clock. It would be a game of turnovers and desperation heaves/airballs. For HS, 40 or 45 seconds would be about right for ALL games.

[HokiePaul]

Interesting that they propose introducing the shot clock at the same time (Age 12) where they propose allowing zone defense and 3-point shooting.

Personally I don't see much need for a shot clock before high school, but I'm 100% for the other recommendations. Having a shorter basket/smaller ball for the young kids helps develop better form on their shots.

[sdoebler]

I will say that I used to be in the realm of not wanting a shot clock as that is how it worked in when I played ball in high school. Starting to work some higher level tournaments with teams from different states my view has drastically changed. The high school game needs a shot clock. I don't know how many games you have done where the stalling starts in the 2nd or 3rd quarter but I get one or two each year and it is brutal.

Additionally, someone mentioned end of the game fouling. While this is obviously part of the game it is so much less prevalent with a shot clock. 45 seconds left down by 2 without the ball and with a 30 second shot clock. Now the team has to step up and play great defense without fouling, really makes the game better.

In terms of how many seconds for high school I would have to look at some of the statistics that take place and what effect 35 to 30 did to the game. Speaking to Camerons point about needing it to be 40-45 seconds, I understand where you are coming from and can't say I completely disagree. However, those teams that would make those desperation shots and run out of time frequently often times in my experience can't possess the ball for 30-35 seconds let alone 40-45 which is why I would lean toward 30-35. I think that a review of studies done in college and states with shot clocks would provide a great resource for making the decision.

[Rich]

As an official, I couldn't possibly care -- as long as we can use the clock to count the 10 seconds in the backcourt. Not having to count that in HS games would make the shot clock worth it....to me as an official, that is.

[so cal lurker]

CA uses 35 (at least for boys--I have a vague sense that girls might be 30, and I believe they have used the shot clock longer than the boys). The 35 seems about right to me--certainly doesn't need to be longer from what I've seen (though my son's league is one of the better leagues, so I can't speak to lower level play). I'm not sure if it is universally used below varsity or is league by league.

But I'm pretty sure they don't let the refs use the shot clock for back court count.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

CA uses 35 (at least for boys--I have a vague sense that girls might be 30, and I believe they have used the shot clock longer than the boys). The 35 seems about right to me--certainly doesn't need to be longer from what I've seen (though my son's league is one of the better leagues, so I can't speak to lower level play). I'm not sure if it is universally used below varsity or is league by league.

But I'm pretty sure they don't let the refs use the shot clock for back court count.

In Cali boys =35 girls=30 and for boys visible 10 count. No back court count for girls

[constable]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Agree on the lower baskets and smaller balls.

With all due respect, I disagree on shot clocks. I believe that a shot clock SHOULD be adopted, and not for the strategic reasons that many coaches want it for. A shot clock should reduce deliberate (note: not intentional, because that is a specific term in the rules) fouls at the end of the game, because fouling actually creates a disadvantage for the fouling team. Fouling does stop the clock, but the shot clock will reset, giving the offense a new possession and a better chance to run out the shot (or game, depending on time remaining) clock.

If teams do not foul near the end of the game, we as officials do not have to guess on which deliberate fouls to rule as intentional fouls, and which deliberate fouls to rule as common fouls. This will eliminate the need for NFHS to constantly put intentional fouls as a point of emphasis every year, because intentional fouls would then only happen in excessive contact/dangerous play situations, or if a player did not try to play the ball. In addition, fewer fouls would mean a safer game, because players who are not fouled will not be as likely to retaliate or talk trash to other players. Officials' jobs would be easier, because they will not have to rule every touch as a foul in the last few minutes, as is currently the accepted practice in non-shot clock games.

I may have limited experience as a basketball official (3 years overall, 1 season at the high school sub-varsity level), but I have worked games both with and without the shot clock, and have noticed that teams who play with a shot clock play basketball throughout all 32 minutes of the game, instead of just for 28 minutes. I have also noticed fewer deliberate fouls with a shot clock than without a shot clock in my games, whether in boys or girls games, whether in urban public school games or private school games.

A 30-second shot clock would be the easiest to use for high school games, because a visible 10-second count would not be required (if the official sees that the ball is still in the backcourt with 20 seconds on the shot clock, there is a violation) while the shot clock is on. This would free the official to concentrate on a wider area of the court in transition. This is why I would recommend a 30-second shot clock for high school play. If high school chose to go with a 24-second shot clock, then a visual count would be needed, because the FIBA/NBA backcourt count is 8 seconds, not 10.

We don't use a visible count anymore.

If you can't subtract 8 from 24, then you have a problem.

Our HS uses a modified FIBA- they still allow you to call timeout from the floor whereas real FIBA does not. They also have a 35 second shot clock with a full reset on everything which is vastly different from real FIBA.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by LRZ

HS shot clocks and kiddie-height baskets/smaller basketballs are very different issues.

I like the idea of lower baskets and smaller basketballs for little kids. I've ref'ed enough games with scores like 12-4, and making it easier to shoot and score would make for better skills development and thus better games, imo.

Shot clocks seem to me a solution in search of a problem. Nothing wrong with basketball being a game of tactics and strategy. Spread offense, running the clock? Learn to trap, force turnovers.

I have played and reffed in both shot-clock and non-shot clock states. If you think shot clocks aren't needed you are about 30 years behind the time. Varsity games need 35 and fresh/jv need about 40. You can still spread the offense and play basketball. But most of this is so dated it's scary.

[LRZ]

Well, that's one opinion. The powers that be have tinkered with the pace of play for years. Remember the hashmarks, where we would step in and command, "Play!"?

Maybe it depends on where you find the beauty of the game.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Well, that's one opinion. The powers that be have tinkered with the pace of play for years. Remember the hashmarks, where we would step in and command, "Play!"?

Maybe it depends on where you find the beauty of the game.

What are you talking about? It seems as if three sports have been mashed together: baseball, because baseball umpires command "Play!" whenever the ball is dead, football, because football fields have hashmarks on which the ball is spotted, and basketball.

The shot clock would reduce the need for any other pace of play rules, because a team that plays under time constraints all game long, whether from the shot clock, or from the game clock when there is less time on the game clock than on the shot clock, will not be likely to stall and drag down the pace of play. The shot clock still gives a team the opportunity to play fast or slow, but it limits how slow the game can be, to reward both good offensive and good defensive play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

What are you talking about? It seems as if three sports have been mashed together: baseball, because baseball umpires command "Play!" whenever the ball is dead, football, because football fields have hashmarks on which the ball is spotted, and basketball.

He's talking about the rules as they used to be.

The shot clock would reduce the need for any other pace of play rules, because a team that plays under time constraints all game long, whether from the shot clock, or from the game clock when there is less time on the game clock than on the shot clock, will not be likely to stall and drag down the pace of play. The shot clock still gives a team the opportunity to play fast or slow, but it limits how slow the game can be, to reward both good offensive and good defensive play.

The shot clock is needed where the game is *more* abouth the entertainment and where you can recruit who plays for you.

At levels where it's all about who lives close and chooses not to participate in another activity, then the teams should be allowed more freedom to compete as they see fit -- and if that means a slowdown, so be it.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

What are you talking about? It seems as if three sports have been mashed together: baseball, because baseball umpires command "Play!" whenever the ball is dead, football, because football fields have hashmarks on which the ball is spotted, and basketball.

You are going to make MTD go up into his attic. There was a time when courts had hashmarks along each side line. If a team held the ball beyond them and made no attempt to penetrate, and the defense sat back, we would, at some point, step in and tell the defense to come out and "play." Or so I remember it.