2019 NFHS Questionnaire

[BlueDevilRef]

Frankly I’m neutral on seatbelt. But I do think it’s reasoning is sound: act like a child enough to get a tech, be treated like a child and have to sit down. But yes, it is a little silly for lots of reasons previously stated.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Overall take away, it is clear that someone is considering penalizing the coach for uniform violations like waistbands. I think that is the only way this can be resolved. Put this on the coaches and if they coaches get penalized, then it will stop. Coaches act like they have no idea now what players are wearing. I wish ultimately this was out of our hands, but something needs to be done if there are going to be rules about what players wear.

Even if they add a T on the head coach, many officials simply won't enforce it.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Frankly I’m neutral on seatbelt. But I do think it’s reasoning is sound: act like a child enough to get a tech, be treated like a child and have to sit down. But yes, it is a little silly for lots of reasons previously stated.

But coaches aren't children. I don't tolerate misbehavior and I expect sportsmanship rules to be followed, but at the same time treating coaches like kids doesn't help the situation at all. Emotion is a part of the game and sometimes it crosses the line, but that doesn't mean we should have to monitor the coach the rest of the game.

[Paintguru]

Originally Posted by SC Official

But coaches aren't children. I don't tolerate misbehavior and I expect sportsmanship rules to be followed, but at the same time treating coaches like kids doesn't help the situation at all. Emotion is a part of the game and sometimes it crosses the line, but that doesn't mean we should have to monitor the coach the rest of the game.

True, but I feel like the addition of the book warning gives officials enough tools to deal with coaches in a non-confrontational manner. Once a T is necessary, I have no issue with the added "penalty" of seat-belting (granted, I wouldn't cry if it was eliminated either).

As for the rest of this survey, I voted against the shot clock and against all fashion police rules. Granted I only do F/JV for now, so perhaps some of these issues present themselves differently at the V level. However, the only fashion police question we as officials should need to answer is "does the player's equipment present a safety issue?".

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by SC Official

A seatbelted coach (and us having to inform him he's been seatbelted) doesn't make the game better in any way. Too often the conversation telling the coach he has to sit turns hostile. Yes, that might not be our fault, but it's wholly unnecessary to have to treat the coach like he's a preschooler in timeout.

There's absolutely no good reason for this rule, and quite frankly I think it has minimal if any influence on how coaches behave.

I would disagree with this. It may not always make the game better, but in the majority of games where I have seen, the coach who has to sit ends up focusing more on coaching and less of arguing with officials. That does help the game.

I've also never had a coach turn hostile when reminded. If the coach doesn't sit on his own during the administration, the official passing by once play is resumed issues a simple reminder "coach you'll need to sit". Never had any issues there.

Also, having the coach sit after the first T makes the second T all the more obvious if it has to be called.

[biz2]

Not sure why there is resistance to the shot clock. I understand that Mark thinks it is unnecessary because of the small amount of "slow down" games that occur. In my opinion, one of those type games is too many.

The shot clock has been in play in Massachusetts for the boys since '97-'98 and I believe it came in for the girls in '92-'93. It requires timing crews to understand the rules and it requires the referee crews to pay attention to one more thing, but we have very few problems in games that I coach or referee. Any problems that do occur are quickly rectified.

The shot clock has created a game that is more player-centric and less coach involved. I would say at the boys varsity level in games I see, there are maybe an average of 1-2 shot clock violations and another 1-2 times where teams are forced into a difficult shot that without the shot clock they wouldn't have taken.

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I would disagree with this. It may not always make the game better, but in the majority of games where I have seen, the coach who has to sit ends up focusing more on coaching and less of arguing with officials. That does help the game.

Close but not quite correct. The TECH is what causes the coach to focus more on coaching, not the act of having to sit down. And refs would call more techs if it didn’t require having to go over there and tell the coach to sit.

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I've also never had a coach turn hostile when reminded. If the coach doesn't sit on his own during the administration, the official passing by once play is resumed issues a simple reminder "coach you'll need to sit". Never had any issues there.

Whether the coach sits on his own or not it irrelevant — we have to tell him. Otherwise he can claim he never was told and create a pain in the ass when we tech him later for standing.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Close but not quite correct. The TECH is what causes the coach to focus more on coaching, not the act of having to sit down. And refs would call more techs if it didn’t require having to go over there and tell the coach to sit.

I think it is a little of both. Probably also depends on the coach

Originally Posted by AremRed

Whether the coach sits on his own or not it irrelevant — we have to tell him. Otherwise he can claim he never was told and create a pain in the ass when we tech him later for standing.

Maybe this is a local thing, but almost universally in my area, we do not make a point of going to tell the coach. They all know and most of them find a seat without being told. If they don't find a seat by the time the ball is in play, the official who passes by will remind them. Or the first time they stand up we will remind them.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Even if they add a T on the head coach, many officials simply won't enforce it.

That may be true. But a coach, not knowing who might or might not enforce it, will be unlikely to just take his chances. It would be much easier to just ensure the players are legal.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Close but not quite correct. The TECH is what causes the coach to focus more on coaching, not the act of having to sit down. And refs would call more techs if it didn’t require having to go over there and tell the coach to sit.

I would argue that you too are close but not quite correct. You're right about the Tech being the cause of coaches focusing on coaching, however I think there are very few techs if any not called because the official doesn't want to make the coach sit down. I've never once considered that when making a decision as to what to call. So would removal of the seatbelt allow officials to call more techs? I'd like to hope not. That should have no part of the decision. If a coach is acting out of line, then use the tools you have the way they are intended.

Now with all that said, the discussion in this thread has actually moved me from pro-seatbelt rule to neutral. A lot of good points made for eliminating it, especially the idea that it would be one less thing distracting us from actually calling the game, but I do agree with Paintguru's point that the bench warning option eases any guilt that some (not me) might feel about a seatbelt rule. I'm still in favor of the rule for now, but I'm riding the fence a bit.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by biz2

Not sure why there is resistance to the shot clock. I understand that Mark thinks it is unnecessary because of the small amount of "slow down" games that occur. In my opinion, one of those type games is too many.

The shot clock has been in play in Massachusetts for the boys since '97-'98 and I believe it came in for the girls in '92-'93. It requires timing crews to understand the rules and it requires the referee crews to pay attention to one more thing, but we have very few problems in games that I coach or referee. Any problems that do occur are quickly rectified.

The shot clock has created a game that is more player-centric and less coach involved. I would say at the boys varsity level in games I see, there are maybe an average of 1-2 shot clock violations and another 1-2 times where teams are forced into a difficult shot that without the shot clock they wouldn't have taken.

Because it's a solution looking for a problem. Sensationalist media publishes one or two of these "stall ball" stories every year and people act like that is the norm in the HS game. The average possession in a HS game lasts less than 30 seconds before a shot hits the rim. The only thing it would do is force more bad shots; it won't make bad basketball better.

Also people forget that the HS basketball encompasses a much wider spectrum of talent than the college level. The rules are written to accommodate all those skill levels. And the NFHS is not in the business of "getting kids ready for the next level" like so many people think should be the case.

A shot clock is a huge learning curve for officials who aren't used to it. It was very tough for me when I started college ball, and it took a couple seasons before I was completely comfortable and could catch most every mistake. At the HS level there are so many officials who have no desire to learn new rules or get better as well as many who have been working 20-30 years, and now we're asking them to take on a major change like this and all the new rules that would come with it? It would be disastrous. And it's hard enough to find competent operators at the small college level. In high school those issues are merely magnified. Pair together incompetent table personnel and officials who aren't used to a shot clock, and it will be miserable.

[SC Official]

I was in favor of the 28-foot box so I didn't have to police the location of the coach as much. I've always been anti-seatbelt for the same reason. The rule gives us something else unrelated to the game that we have to monitor. If the whacked coach spontaneously stands up it gives the opposing coach something to bitch about.

If the coach is going to be an ass while standing he's going to be one while sitting, too. I simply don't believe there would all of a sudden be an appreciable spike in unsporting behavior by eliminating this rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

A shot clock is a huge learning curve for officials who aren't used to it. It was very tough for me when I started college ball, and it took a couple seasons before I was completely comfortable and could catch most every mistake. At the HS level there are so many officials who have no desire to learn new rules or get better as well as many who have been working 20-30 years, and now we're asking them to take on a major change like this and all the new rules that would come with it? It would be disastrous. And it's hard enough to find competent operators at the small college level. In high school those issues are merely magnified. Pair together incompetent table personnel and officials who aren't used to a shot clock, and it will be miserable.

We are at the mercy of the table people and yes it is often miserable at the college level as well. But again, far fewer schools and situation to deal with at that level and a more trained staff. If you used counted all the schools just at one level of NCAA ball, we have more than that by double in my state alone. So you will have many more chances for things to be screwed up and many more officials that cannot get simple things right. Getting a shot clock situation takes time to learn and to catch. I also had some issues and still have some issues depending on where I am at to catch such things. But there are also standards of where the shot clock is located, where I would not be surprised if the NF makes this rule but sets no standards of where, when or how the shot clock should be used.

Again not all players are going to play college or higher level ball. Many only will play high school. And in the games, I work most games the shot clock would never become a factor, especially with the shooting 3s that has come into play. Maybe 15 years ago I might have been more up for that style the shot clock would bring. But now the only time I see regular holding the ball is around a minute to go in the quarter (which I wish they would get rid of) to make sure they have the last shot. Otherwise, teams are playing regular ball and waiting for the most part to take a good shot and that could come 5 seconds into the possession.

Peace

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by SC Official

A shot clock is a huge learning curve for officials who aren't used to it. It was very tough for me when I started college ball, and it took a couple seasons before I was completely comfortable and could catch most every mistake. At the HS level there are so many officials who have no desire to learn new rules or get better as well as many who have been working 20-30 years, and now we're asking them to take on a major change like this and all the new rules that would come with it? It would be disastrous. And it's hard enough to find competent operators at the small college level. In high school those issues are merely magnified. Pair together incompetent table personnel and officials who aren't used to a shot clock, and it will be miserable.

Another thing I would wonder about is if they would use one of the college rules (mens or womens) for resets, or something different. When to reset and to what number can be fairly complex to an untrained high school person. And yes they can get trained, but if you're running the clock in a high school game, you're probably volunteering your time, or getting paid like 20 bucks, so that training is probably pretty low on the priority list. I agree with you, miserable results for multiple seasons before things started to get figured out.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by biz2

Not sure why there is resistance to the shot clock. I understand that Mark thinks it is unnecessary because of the small amount of "slow down" games that occur. In my opinion, one of those type games is too many.

The shot clock has been in play in Massachusetts for the boys since '97-'98 and I believe it came in for the girls in '92-'93. It requires timing crews to understand the rules and it requires the referee crews to pay attention to one more thing, but we have very few problems in games that I coach or referee. Any problems that do occur are quickly rectified.

The shot clock has created a game that is more player-centric and less coach involved. I would say at the boys varsity level in games I see, there are maybe an average of 1-2 shot clock violations and another 1-2 times where teams are forced into a difficult shot that without the shot clock they wouldn't have taken.

Have you ever:

1) Watched a "slow down" game?

2) Played in a "slow down" game?

3) Officiated a "slow down" game?


1) I have watched a couple of "slow down" games in my time with the last one being a boys' H.S. game in the late 1960s.

2) While I have never played in a complete "slow down" game I have played in a number of H.S. FR, JV, and VAR games where we took the air out of the Ball as early as 4:00 left in the game to preserve the win.

3) I have not officiated a "slow down" game but I have officiated a great number of H.S. games where teams have taken the air out of the Ball in order to preserve a win. But I did have one game that sticks in my mind where taking the air out the Ball backfired: It was in the late 1990s in a loser bracket game in a AAU Boys' 13U game. A team from North Carolina jumped out to a 12 point 1st QT lead and then held the ball for almost the entire 2nd QT. The got blown out by 24 points in the 2nd Half.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. If you have never officiated a "slow down" game and I count the AAU game as one for me, they are a lot of fun to officiate. Just a personal opinion.