NFHS Update

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Administrators. No shot clock was proposed this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one coming in the next few years, once the old guard of administrators retire.

Statements much like this have been made for 20+ years. No change yet. At some point, you will likely be right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Statements much like this have been made for 20+ years. No change yet. At some point, you will likely be right.

The funny part about what people assume is the "old guard" they do not realize that what keeps people in administrative roles are often what kept others in administrative roles. An Athletic Director, for example, is not going to get along suggesting to spend more money and resources just because of something another level does. That is the kind of thing that might get you removed from your position if things do not work out.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

Mary Struckhoff -- the former NFHS rules editor who didn't understand the rules!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The funny part about what people assume is the "old guard" they do not realize that what keeps people in administrative roles are often what kept others in administrative roles. An Athletic Director, for example, is not going to get along suggesting to spend more money and resources just because of something another level does. That is the kind of thing that might get you removed from your position if things do not work out.

Peace

The athletic director sees the bigger picture. The principal sees a bigger picture. The superintendent sees the biggest picture.

I can tell you that once WI passed the shot clock (temporarily) it did not take long for all 24 of the athletic directors in the conference I'm the commissioner of to unanimously oppose it.

I'll be surprised if this is something that goes national while I'm still involved.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Administrators. No shot clock was proposed this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one coming in the next few years, once the old guard of administrators retire.

Why would administrators not want a shot clock? Money is one factor (ADs would have to pay for the shot clock, and would have to use a combination of state (or local) tax money and booster club money to do so), and change is another one. Administrators are used to basketball without a shot clock, so it is their normal. They may not know (or care) about basketball at other levels having a shot clock (and being better for it, IMO). Even if they do know, they may be uncomfortable "rocking the boat" to change high school basketball in their state, or nationally, unless there is enough demand from their state to make them feel uncomfortable. MD, NY, MA, CA, WA, DC, RI, ND, and SD have all had demands from coaches to adopt the shot clock, and have adopted it. IL, WI, and other states are considering it, as seen in news articles on the internet. I have been told by an anonymous source that officials and coaches on the NFHS committee are overwhelmingly in support of the shot clock, but administrators are against it. If the rules committee has significant membership changes, then it would not be surprising to see NFHS adopting a shot clock. In the meantime, keep sending proposals to your local state rules interpreters if you want shot clocks, changes to the bonus rule, etc.

The "old guard" has changed multiple times over the past couple decades where the shot clock has been put on the table every spring, and guess what? It still hasn't been implemented. These cries for a high school shot clock are not new; the same complaints existed 10-20 years ago.

I also highly doubt high school officials are "overwhelmingly in support of the shot clock." Also, since when are officials on the rules committee? I also doubt the same for coaches; a majority might want the shot clock, but I doubt it's "overwhelming." I think you might need to look for a new source.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The "old guard" has changed multiple times over the past couple decades where the shot clock has been put on the table every spring, and guess what? It still hasn't been implemented. These cries for a high school shot clock are not new; the same complaints existed 10-20 years ago.

What happens in many areas of life is that when the old guard fades away and the new generation takes over, that new generation has, by that time, become a lot wiser and realizes that some of the things the old guard did were actually not so bad, even good.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And we can now officially put an end to the most bemoaned rule in this forum's history:

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

A ball deflected by B, then touched by A that goes into the backcourt hasn't been deflected into the backcourt by B...It's been deflected by A.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe that is what they're saying. Maybe it is, but I think we'll have to see when the actual rule comes out.

I think they may be just correcting the erroneous interpretation that has been out for a few years. A deflection by B that goes directly to A who is already in the backcourt shouldn't have ever been considered a violation but someone on the committee that is apparently ESL thought it was. Now they're changing a rule to mean what it always meant.

Agreed. Seems to me that if A touches after B and ball goes into backcourt, if A touches, it will still be a backcourt

[BillyMac]

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Is this (below) what the NFHS is trying to clarify?

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2017-18
SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

[Pantherdreams]

As someone who has thumped the shot clock drum in various means and capacities I can tell you its not an old guard vs youth movement issue.

Its logistic vs sentiment/philosophy.

All arguments for the shot clock have to do with changing the way the game is played, aligning it with other levels, preparing kids to play, giving kids autonomy, making it a play making type game vs a coach controlled game etc. List goes on and on but its basically basketball as a community and a concept moving in a different direction, that is benefited by a a shot clock.

All arguments against the shot clock are practical ones. Budgetary concerns, coaching concerns, table issues etc. Logistical and practical problems that people cannot/ do not feel they should have to overcome in their position.

The reality is that so long as AD's and coaches jobs/livelihoods/paychecks are tied to effective management of their team/programs and success a majority will not be in favour of the shot clock. The shot clock increases responsibilities and costs while altering styles of play and game management for coaches, players, officials, and staff. It eliminates potential strategies and coach control. IT requires coaches to coach differently. Shot clocks are asking AD's and coaches for the "good of the game" to take on logistical and fundamental differences to how they operate, when operational complications can cost them their jobs.

They are not going to do those things for philosophical reasons in most cases.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Its logistic vs sentiment/philosophy.

All arguments for the shot clock have to do with changing the way the game is played, aligning it with other levels, preparing kids to play, giving kids autonomy, making it a play making type game vs a coach controlled game etc. List goes on and on but its basically basketball as a community and a concept moving in a different direction, that is benefited by a a shot clock.

All arguments against the shot clock are practical ones. Budgetary concerns, coaching concerns, table issues etc. Logistical and practical problems that people cannot/ do not feel they should have to overcome in their position.

I disagree with that. I am against the shot clock (in HS) for practical reasons, AND I also think the HS game is better without it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree with that. I am against the shot clock (in HS) for practical reasons, AND I also think the HS game is better without it.

I agree. I think the whole "good of the game" argument is just a bunch of crap.

0% of NFHS decision-making should be tied to "preparing players to play at the next level."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

A ball deflected by B, then touched by A that goes into the backcourt hasn't been deflected into the backcourt by B...It's been deflected by A.

That's has nothing to do with my post.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

An exception was approved to note that any player who was located in the backcourt may recover a ball that is deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.

Is this (below) what the NFHS is trying to clarify?

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2017-18
SITUATION 7: A1, in the team’s frontcourt, passes towards A2, also in the team’s frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A’s backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A’s frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A’s backcourt, but never having touched in Team A’s backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A’s backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1, 4-4-3, 9-9-1)

Whether or not it was the target, it fixes that anomaly. That's why I posted what I posted at the beginning of the thread.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

A ball deflected by B, then touched by A that goes into the backcourt hasn't been deflected into the backcourt by B...It's been deflected by A.

I can't imagine a huge headline just to close a weird interpretation, to be honest with you.