USA Basketball Recommendations.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's just nonsense. A very, very small percentage of HS players play NCAA basketball. Why gear the game for them rather than the vast majority who will not play after HS?

Because MOST, if not ALL, HS players want to play college basketball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

Because MOST, if not ALL, HS players want to play college basketball.

How is that even relevant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kelvin green]

I would be in favor of shot clocks if we use it to eliminate a bunch of other rules. If we eliminate the closely guarded counts, it would be a step in the right direction. ... we need to eliminate the ability to sub after the last of made free throws. We need to eliminate calling time out after a made basket by the scoring team .... But hey that’s me

[ODog]

In Massachusetts, we use a 30-second shot clock for all high school/prep basketball, and for the main 5th-8th grade intercity leagues. It's been that way for at least a decade, possibly quite longer, so it's second nature to all officials, table crews and teams/players involved in at least moderately serious basketball. And yes, the game is wayyyyy better because of it.

I went to a Division I boys state semifinal in Conn. between the supposed top two teams in the state, and the stalling started in the second quarter. It was atrocious. I was getting antsy just watching and felt so relieved that nobody has to endure that nonsense in Mass.

We still use a visible 10-second count for boys games, because though the shot clock starts on a legal touch, NFHS rules dictate that the 10-second count doesn't begin until team control is established inbounds. These are not always at the same time.

No 10 seconds for girls when a shot clock is being used. They can dribble out all 30 in the backcourt if they want.

The game is more difficult to officiate, because you have one more thing to constantly be aware of -- and one more thing for the table to screw up -- and the learning curve will be steep if it is instituted nationwide, but it absolutely makes the game better and more fun to officiate.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by ODog

In Massachusetts, we use a 30-second shot clock for all high school/prep basketball, and for the main 5th-8th grade intercity leagues. It's been that way for at least a decade, possibly quite longer, so it's second nature to all officials, table crews and teams/players involved in at least moderately serious basketball. And yes, the game is wayyyyy better because of it.

I went to a Division I boys state semifinal in Conn. between the supposed top two teams in the state, and the stalling started in the second quarter. It was atrocious. I was getting antsy just watching and felt so relieved that nobody has to endure that nonsense in Mass.

We still use a visible 10-second count for boys games, because though the shot clock starts on a legal touch, NFHS rules dictate that the 10-second count doesn't begin until team control is established inbounds. These are not always at the same time.

No 10 seconds for girls when a shot clock is being used. They can dribble out all 30 in the backcourt if they want.

The game is more difficult to officiate, because you have one more thing to constantly be aware of -- and one more thing for the table to screw up -- and the learning curve will be steep if it is instituted nationwide, but it absolutely makes the game better and more fun to officiate.

If MA is already not on the NFHS rules committee because of the shot clock, why not change the 10-second rule to the NCAA rule of starting the count when the ball is touched inbounds? DC public boys and private school games (WCAC, IAC, MAC, ISL) use the NCAA standard to decide when the backcourt count starts, and DCSAA is an NFHS member, even though DC uses a 30 second shot clock for high school basketball.

[biz2]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If MA is already not on the NFHS rules committee because of the shot clock, why not change the 10-second rule to the NCAA rule of starting the count when the ball is touched inbounds? DC public boys and private school games (WCAC, IAC, MAC, ISL) use the NCAA standard to decide when the backcourt count starts, and DCSAA is an NFHS member, even though DC uses a 30 second shot clock for high school basketball.

That's a good question and I don't know the definite answer, but I would guess it is so the rulebook and its general definitions don't need to be amended.

We still use the NFHS rulebook, but the MIAA has a one page sheet for shot clock rules. The sheet doesn't change any rules, but simply adds the provisions for a shot clock.

There was mention earlier about the shot clock negatively affecting play at levels lower than "high level varsity" competition. I coach a boys JV team at a small public high school and we have used a 30 second shot clock for 20+ years. The shot clock rarely comes into play. I would say that there is, on average, < 1 violation per game and I would say that each team probably forces up, approximately, 2-3 shots per game to avoid the violation. That's my experience anyway.

[Pantherdreams]

From the frozen tundra north of the frozen tundra, different regions use different rule sets with most using FIBA rules, but some using NFHS or NFHS based rule sets.

All of the adoptions and adaptations for the youth levels make sense to me.

The difficulty with discussing the shot clock implementation with officials is that in terms of impact as officials it is definitely more work and complication, as a fan/lover of the game we each have our own opinions on whats "best" for the game, and developmental models for athletes/healthy lifstyle, Long Term Athlete Development are furthest away from most officials on a hierarchy of relevance/importance.

While to some extent the shot clock can do all the positive and negatives that people are expressing (full disclosure we play full FIBA rules with players as young as 14, modifications to shot clock timing and rules below that). The change that it makes most is the way that coaches coach and develop players. Along with the other FIBA rules re:timeouts, closely guarded etc. it develops a game that is more player driven and less coach driven. All/more of the players on the floor have to be defenders, shot makers, ball handlers, and decision makers and able to better play out of random or broken situations as the clock creates more and more of these situations. Coaching players to be universal and create is definitely a move away coach controlled, tactics heavy basketball, but it also allows for a different (you have to decide better or not) experience for the all of the players involved in terms of development, skill sets required and what their playing and practice experience looks like. More shots, more touches, more plays, more breakdowns, more creativity, more skills, more players playing, more opportunities, etc is generally equated to more fun and "better" experience by a majority of sport stakeholders (players, parents, etc)

As an official I don't have a horse in the race, but I can tell based on my experience. THe nights I have to work games without shot clocks in Maine or at a summer/youth tournament are now the games I dread now.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

From the frozen tundra north of the frozen tundra, different regions use different rule sets with most using FIBA rules, but some using NFHS or NFHS based rule sets.

All of the adoptions and adaptations for the youth levels make sense to me.

The difficulty with discussing the shot clock implementation with officials is that in terms of impact as officials it is definitely more work and complication, as a fan/lover of the game we each have our own opinions on whats "best" for the game, and developmental models for athletes/healthy lifstyle, Long Term Athlete Development are furthest away from most officials on a hierarchy of relevance/importance.

While to some extent the shot clock can do all the positive and negatives that people are expressing (full disclosure we play full FIBA rules with players as young as 14, modifications to shot clock timing and rules below that). The change that it makes most is the way that coaches coach and develop players. Along with the other FIBA rules re:timeouts, closely guarded etc. it develops a game that is more player driven and less coach driven. All/more of the players on the floor have to be defenders, shot makers, ball handlers, and decision makers and able to better play out of random or broken situations as the clock creates more and more of these situations. Coaching players to be universal and create is definitely a move away coach controlled, tactics heavy basketball, but it also allows for a different (you have to decide better or not) experience for the all of the players involved in terms of development, skill sets required and what their playing and practice experience looks like. More shots, more touches, more plays, more breakdowns, more creativity, more skills, more players playing, more opportunities, etc is generally equated to more fun and "better" experience by a majority of sport stakeholders (players, parents, etc)

As an official I don't have a horse in the race, but I can tell based on my experience. THe nights I have to work games without shot clocks in Maine or at a summer/youth tournament are now the games I dread now.

Does the FIBA manual require a visible 8-second count or is the shot clock the official record of the 8-second count? I've read the August 2017 FIBA Interpretations document, and the situations that deal with the 8-second count all seem to indicate that the 8 second count only would reset if the shot clock resets to 24.

In NCAA and NBA rules, the backcourt count is not visible, because the shot clock determines the backcourt count (NCAA Men adds timeouts to the list of times that the count resets, and the NBA also has some exceptions (jump ball controlled in backcourt, infection control, or a throw-in into the backcourt)). The only time that a visible backcourt count is used (in NCAA), is when the shot clock is off.

If FIBA uses a non-visible count (there are no references to doing an 8-second count in the 2015 updates to the basic FIBA 3-man manual), it would make sense to adopt FIBA rules in the US as well, at least for ease of officiating. It would be very interesting to see high school, college, and professional players playing the same brand of basketball throughout their careers, and would create some consistency for officials moving up from one level of play to another, rather than requiring them to learn disparate sets of rules and mechanics for each level.

[RefsNCoaches]

As a guy that's been coaching and officiating for a number of years, I feel it all needs to be done in steps.

For pee-wees, K-2nd - use 8' and 27.5" balls
3rd-4th on 9' rims with 27.5" balls up to 4th grade
At 5th grade move them to the 28.5 and 10' rims
Then keep them on the 28.5 through 6th grade and then move them to the standard size ball.

The biggest problem I see in the younger levels is lack of ball handling ability with BOTH hands and shooting mechanics. A smaller basketball will help this but not by itself obviously. Smaller hands can control a smaller ball better.

Same with shooting mechanics...they aren't strong enough to get it up so they over compensate with horrible shooting mechanics and jacked up form.

If they start with a lower rim and a ball that doesn't seem like a medicine ball, they will be better off in the long run. But with that, it also takes coaches who hammer fundamentals like ball handling and shooting form in practices.

As for shot clock - I've read some pretty good arguements (and I've been against it in the past) but I think I'm coming around to it. I think it needs to be something more than NCAA though (keeping with my theme of taking it in steps)...so I'd say 40 seconds. And move the 3 line in the NCAA out a bit. Keep the HS line at 19'9". An no 3s for anything under 5th grade....and some 5th graders need to NOT be shooting 3's either unless they can demonstrate proper mechanics.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

As a guy that's been coaching and officiating for a number of years, I feel it all needs to be done in steps.

For pee-wees, K-2nd - use 8' and 27.5" balls
3rd-4th on 9' rims with 27.5" balls up to 4th grade
At 5th grade move them to the 28.5 and 10' rims
Then keep them on the 28.5 through 6th grade and then move them to the standard size ball.

The biggest problem I see in the younger levels is lack of ball handling ability with BOTH hands and shooting mechanics. A smaller basketball will help this but not by itself obviously. Smaller hands can control a smaller ball better.

Same with shooting mechanics...they aren't strong enough to get it up so they over compensate with horrible shooting mechanics and jacked up form.

If they start with a lower rim and a ball that doesn't seem like a medicine ball, they will be better off in the long run. But with that, it also takes coaches who hammer fundamentals like ball handling and shooting form in practices.

*I agree: When you see 2nd grade boys [and more extremely, 2nd grade girls] trying to hoist a ball up to a 10 foot goal with all manner of effort, extra gathering steps to build up enough power to 'overcome the force of gravity', and arm flailings---it's really a bad look and a wasted learning/developmental opportunity. This is made even worse when a 2nd grade kid actually manages to swish a shot after hauling the ball up from his waist sideways and launching it---which only serves to reinforce bad shooting mechanics.