USA Basketball Recommendations.
 

I read this article on USAToday.com. USA Basketball makes some very good recommendations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ock/441134002/

MTD, Sr.

Some very good: smaller basketball, lower hoop, no 3's, no zone all for younger kids (11 yo and younger)

Some I don't care for: Adoption of FIBA rules for HS, 24 second shot clock for HS. (too short. I would advocate for 30 or 35 seconds)

Good suggestions overall. I think that a shot clock needs to be common than it is today. It was touched on a bit at the end in terms of cost, I haven't done any research but my guess is that baskets in which the height can be adjusted would bear a larger cost for facilities. Most likely difficult for smaller gyms or schools. I think that the shot clock usage also is hindered by costs, that is our states excuse every year.

I would think it would be a pain to adequately staff the table with someone that knows and consistently runs a shot clock correctly.

There are clip on hoops that attach to the 10' hoops. My kids played on them at the Y when they were little.

Yes, that adds costs, but I think it is a huge value. With a 10' hoop, young kids are throwing the ball, not shooting.

personally, I think the shot clock ruins high school basketball. It takes a lot of strategy out of the game. No shot clock emphasizes ball control and free throw shooting. 2 areas that are disappearing from the game.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

30 Years Behind
 

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.

Just say no to "no zone". It does not promote good defense at all and just creates arguments in every league I've done where one coach teaches a help side defense and nobody else has figured out how to teach it. And your stopping the game every possession when the kid with no attention span drifts away from his man.

Drop the age for the big kid rules to 11+, at least on the boys side.

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.

It's not an opinion it's fact. It's evolution. Competitive games require shot clocks (period). The beauty of the game is making it so teams have an incentive to attempt to score. It's not the 90's and no one gives a crap about defensive "fundamentals". Points wins games. Show me a team that has won by scoring less than their opponents and I'll say I'm wrong.

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

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.

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.

Well, if you say so, it must be true. I alway thought that if you played sound fundamental defense and held your opponent to fewer points than you scored, you'd win.

I like bob's response about when/where a clock is needed--sounds like a reasonable distinction.

I never said it's not needed for all levels. I said it's needed for competitive levels. Any play for fun, or participation leagues don't need it. If a league is competitive then the expectation is the kids will get better and move on and up, where shot clocks are used, say college. So get them used to it. I wouldn't use it below 9th grade (and in some cases even in 9th grade). But by the time you get to varsity or competitive travel, shot clock is necessary.

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.

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

How is that even relevant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

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.

Very funny definition of opinion and fact.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

I wish they would lower the rims for girls/women's basketball. I know that topic has been around for a while and it was be difficult from a structure point of view, but it could change over time. Girls basketball and the WNBA would be way more watchable if the rims were at 9 feet. I love reffing great varsity girls teams because things can run so smoothly but so often girls basketball is awful. The parents and fellow students know this too. It's why they draw half the crowd size

If my local Y can lower the rims to 8 feet in about two minutes at each end with a hand crank, it can't be that difficult.

If they have adjustable backboards. Not all do.

re on the No Zone. I totally agree, let the kids play whatever D. CYO there is some no zone rules but I've never seen anyone pay attention to it and it's all good.

Shot clock. Come on. Of course there should be a shot clock. I'm miffed on why this isn't standard practice everywhere especially for high school games. Also, I did my county middle school championships game last week. For the girls and boys there was a 10 second backcourt count. One of the girl's team, 7th graders, ended up pressing a lot and they got a couple of 10 second counts. It was a fun game and I would like to see that for high school girls basketball. The girls will easily adjust.

On lowering the rims for girls basketball. I rarely see girls playing pickup ball. Boys can do it at a younger age and have more success reaching the rim. It probably is frustrating for girls. Lower the rims where possible and I think you will have better game and more girls playing and getting better. Keeping it at 10 feet is just stupid and women's basketball will always be a second tier sport unless people are brave enough to ask for change. The nets are lower for volleyball btw

I do not agree that it's axiomatic that a shot clock needs to be adopted. If it were a costless decision, then it would be a much closer call, though I can see where some may still not want it at the MS/Fresh/JV level, to put more emphasis on development rather than timing.

But as we all know, it's not a costless decision. With real implications on budgets, I do not think forcing this upon schools is proper - the benefit may not be worth the cost for many. At best, this should be by state association adoption - let individual states decide what works for them. And I certainly don't understand why someone in one state would be miffed if some other state decides not to adopt this.

Wisconsin tried adding one without consulting all the key stakeholders and it was quickly rescinded welk before schools would've needed to purchase and install.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Man To Man Help Defense ...
 

The first year my daughter played organized elementary school age recreation basketball, there was a no zone rule, everybody had to play man to man. When one of her teammates would get beat she would slide over to offer help defense. The officials kept telling her to stop because she was playing a zone. That, and the no free throw rule (no lane lines on the floor for the small side courts) led me to sign her up for the more competitive travel team the next year. She had a good recreation team coach, and she make a lot of new friends, but I had no choice but to move her up.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP.bPb...95&w=174&h=123

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.

Can't tell you whether its my part of Rome or official empire quidelines but we are expected to to show a visual count to indicate to players/coaches etc that count is happening. If there is a discrepency between my count and the shot clock expectation is that we stop the game to have the clock set properly.

Correct, and those rules are the same for all levels--FR, JV, & Varsity. The size of the school/level of play doesn't change anything either.

Ten Second Visual Count ...
 

Here in Connecticut, private prep schools use a hybrid version of NFHS and NCAA rules, including a thirty second shot clock for boys and girls varsity (not subvarsity) games. Varsity officials use the thirty second shot clock for our ten second count, with no visual counting, except when the shot clock is turned off (end of half, private prep schools use halves) when we must (obviously) use a visual count.

Here on Mars, we use the shot clock to determine how much air you have left in your oxygen tank.

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.

No more visible 8 count in FIBA.

FIBA has done a complete about face in the past 5 years. Originally, the visible count had have your fingers show the count ( thumb meant 1 second, thumb and index finger 2 seconds and so on), then they changed to a normal count, and now we do absolutely nothing unless there is a change of possession with less than 24 seconds left and the game clock is not displayed on the shot clock above the net.

Cool! Right now, I am developing a big rules differences/shot clock procedures document, and one of the sections is about the backcourt count, because that is related to the shot clock in most levels of basketball. I was confused, because Pantherdreams above said that he had to use a visible 8-second count, and I didn't know what to put in my document, because the FIBA mechanics manual does not mention how to do 8-second counts. I would also like to be able to work FIBA basketball, so I'm trying to grok FIBA as well as US rules (NFHS/NCAA/NBA). If anyone is interested, I could post the file as a separate topic, or PM it to individual members.