2019 NFHS Questionnaire

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

Any game where the clock stays running for long periods of time is usually a good one - slowdown games included.
-
Multi-quote doesn't seem to work for me, but I wanted to add $0.02 about the seatbelt rule. While I'm indifferent about the rule (it's there but I have no strong feelings for or against it), I believe it's one of the NFHS rules to address sportsmanship in that a coach that receives a direct or indirect T for unsporting behavior loses the box to reinforce the idea that such conduct is unacceptable in educational athletics and that the onus is on the coach to not allow unsporting acts from the bench to be committed.

As such, the NFHS might be reluctant to repeal something possibly intended to promote good sportsmanship from a team's bench.

[biz2]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Have you ever:

1) Watched a "slow down" game?

Yes. In the early 90's before the shot clock in MA watched an inferior team try to hold on to the ball for long stretches to "shorten" the game. The better team was able to overcome the tactic by stretching its defense and creating some turnovers. At first the inferior team was able to get a couple layups by beating the rotations of the trapping defense, but eventually they slipped behind by double digits and abandoned the strategy. The first half score was 14-8 and most of the half consisted of two players passing between each other near the division line and occasionally dribbling over and executing a hand-off. It was disappointing. I was there to watch some good basketball players and their talents were not on display.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

2) Played in a "slow down" game?

I would have to say no, but I'm going to qualify this. I played before the shot clock and we definitely would slow the game down if we had a lead with less than 5 minutes left. We had a slow down offense that was designed to run clock and we probably had possessions that lasted more than 1:00, but we never entered a game with the strategy of "taking the air out of the ball." We sometimes played methodically, but that was more due to a lack of offensive ability than executing a strategy.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

3) Officiated a "slow down" game?

I'm going to give a qualified "no" here too. I did have a middle school game many years ago where one team played a very effective 1-3-1 zone and the other team didn't want to play against it so they sat on the ball with the hope that the zone team would come out of the zone. This lasted for awhile and resulted in technical fouls being assessed to each HC (both coaches started yelling back and forth at each other). Eventually the zone team came out of its zone and pressured the ball which just led to many steals and layups and the game progressed "normally" from there.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

My albeit limited officiating experience with a slowed down game was not particularly fun, but it wasn't altogether unpleasant. It would've been fine if not for having to force adults to act like adults.

I'm curious why you found the slow down game fun to officiate? A fun game for me is an up and down game with good execution that requires me as an official to intervene as little as possible. Low scoring games can be fun as well if the defense is well executed.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Multi-quote doesn't seem to work for me, but I wanted to add $0.02 about the seatbelt rule. While I'm indifferent about the rule (it's there but I have no strong feelings for or against it), I believe it's one of the NFHS rules to address sportsmanship in that a coach that receives a direct or indirect T for unsporting behavior loses the box to reinforce the idea that such conduct is unacceptable in educational athletics and that the onus is on the coach to not allow unsporting acts from the bench to be committed.

As such, the NFHS might be reluctant to repeal something possibly intended to promote good sportsmanship from a team's bench.

We can make clear what conduct is "unacceptable in educational athletics" without putting the coach in "timeout." A technical foul or two (and the subsequent punishment from the school/state) makes it crystal clear.

And we can talk about the "extension of the classroom" mantra 'til the cows come home, but at the end of the day sports are sports and emotional. Sometimes coaches cross the line and while we need to deal with it, the seatbelt rule (especially for indirect T's) makes our job unnecessarily more difficult, not easier.

That being said, I don't see the rule getting repealed for the reason you state. The perception from too many people would be that they are dialing back on sportsmanship. And I'm sure the NFHS doesn't want to be politically incorrect.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I am strongly against a shot clock. I haven’t been on a game in a couple years where it was necessary. Not to mention that’s one more major thing for us to worry about, one more major thing that will get screwed up at the table. This is a solution looking for a problem.

Disagree 100%. We adopted the shot clock a few years back and you hardly notice it at all. Keeps the pace of the game up. You also don't get teams holding the ball for 2 minutes of game time any more.

Some may disagree, but I don't see the shot clock as a major thing to worry about. Maybe that's because we do 3 man crews. 2 man crews might make it a major thing to worry about.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

Disagree 100%. We adopted the shot clock a few years back and you hardly notice it at all. Keeps the pace of the game up. You also don't get teams holding the ball for 2 minutes of game time any more.

...

I can't remember the last time a team held the ball for even an entire minute in any of my HS games. I can list numerous times every season where my college games get interrupted to fix shot-clock issues.

[CJP]

In almost every occasion where I seen a coach lose his box, the game improved. I think it is effective.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Wow!!!!!!! Talk about drama!!!!!

Disastrous? Hardly! Miserable? Not even close.

Our area has been using the shot clock for only a few years. There are very few shot clock violations in a season that I have seen and I don't see very many "forced" shots because the shot clock is running down.

You said it yourself that the average shot in HS ball goes up in under 30 seconds. How does a 35 second shot clock rush things? Or are your talking about a shot clock that is less than that?

I don't think it was hard for any veteran official to take on the major change in our area. It has gone very well and I don't know an official that is upset by it. There used to be plenty of "stall ball" played in our area. That is gone now and we have more actual basketball being played.

Now, are some of you guys thinking this would be hard to adopt with 2 man crews? We only work 3 man crews and it's been an easy change to adopt.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I can't remember the last time a team held the ball for even an entire minute in any of my HS games. I can list numerous times every season where my college games get interrupted to fix shot-clock issues.

I can't even begin to explain to you how often we would see it in our area.

You get a big game. It's a nut cruncher as you expected. Then with 2 or 3 minutes to go in the game, the team that is winning starts to spread the floor and run the clock down to preserve the win. 2 to 3 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is now gone. You actually have to make plays to keep your lead and win.

[CJP]

I have been through shot clock implementation in two states and it was not that bad.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CJP

In almost every occasion where I seen a coach lose his box, the game improved.

Because he can't stand up (with exceptions), or because he's one step closer to sitting on a cold bus in a cold parking lot?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because he can't stand up (with exceptions), or because he's one step closer to sitting on a cold bus in a cold parking lot?

All I know is that the bad behavior that got him in trouble stopped.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CJP

All I know is that the bad behavior that got him in trouble stopped.

Maybe the action of sitting is a constant reminder to him that he's one step closer to a bigger punishment.

[so cal lurker]

Personal observations from watching shot clock games in California:

Not that common for most teams, even JV or Frosh, to have trouble with the shot clock.

Most possessions that do have an issue get there because the team deliberately pulled back and slowed down, not because they could not run their offense to a reasonable shot in 35 seconds.

The biggest advantage, IMO, is that it reduces deliberate fouling at the end, as the team can elect to play defense for 35 seconds for a stop instead of fearing the other team will never shoot again.

It is not unusual for the operators to have a problem at some point in resetting or not resetting the shot clock at the appropriate time. (All resets are to the full 35.)

(The games I have watched have been at schools with sold programs--I have no sense how it would play out at less skilled levels.)

All in all, I think it is marginally beneficial to the game on a routine basis.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by CJP

In almost every occasion where I seen a coach lose his box, the game improved. I think it is effective.

That begs the question, would the game have not improved absent the seatbelt rule?

[frezer11]

I think the shot clock should continue to be a state-adopted thing. I know I represent the minority here, but living in Wyoming, we have a lot of smaller schools that sometimes put together teams of kids who barely know how to tie their own shoe, much less put a competitive team together. Often times these teams are just trying to run an offense without turning it over, so they'll run through the motion offense like 10 times before someone tries a shot (or they turn it over). They aren't trying to stall, they just don't have the skill to do much else. That would result in these teams taking poor shots more often than not. When you have 2 of these teams playing each other? I just think a game with 20 forced shots and 10 more shot clock violations is not the intent.