2019 NFHS Questionnaire

Yet AGAIN the NFHS ignores the most important rules changes, which I have tried submitting through my state (the only "legit" way to submit rules changes), instead opting for lesser changes. The most important changes are, in order:

1. Changing the goaltending rule to mimic NBA/NCAA-M/NCAA-W/FIBA (every f-ing major rule set) where you cannot block the ball once it has touched the backboard. This is an easy rule change, easy to call, easy to write, and it blows my mind they haven't done it.

2. Eliminating the INANE "resumption of play procedure". Putting the ball down is an EASY way to piss off players, coaches, and fans and even if the team is extremely late makes the ref crew look terrible. Give us the option to assess a delay-of-game warning like every other reasonable rule set out there.

3. Eliminating the need for a coach to sit down after a direct or indirect technical foul. I get the reasoning but it pisses off the coaches and makes refs a) less likely to call technical fouls on the coach/bench and b) less likely to have the balls and make the coach sit after the tech. And even if they are told to sit they are terrible at remembering and almost never get a second one for standing.

4. Point of emphasis for schools properly marking coaching box and officials enforcing it. I have seen SO MANY games this year with the floor not marked properly, not all the chairs inside the team area, coaches on the floor yelling at officials, coaches camping at halfcourt to coach offense/defense on other side of the floor, and assistant coaches standing and in one case in my game coming out of the head coaching box to call a play at half court. I heard many times this season "you're the only one to enforce this all year" and that's wrong.

There are other ones: delayed violation for player running OOB, re-subbing once the ball has become live instead of sit-a-tick, requiring two horns for replacements intervals and officials calling techs when coaches slow roll a replacement sub, restricted area, shot clock (gonna have way more stoppages due to shitty operators), changing full timeouts to 75 seconds, allowing the headbands with extensions for girls (so dumb that pro and college allow it yet it's a "safety issue" in HS), clarifying the team control rule for fouls during throw-ins only.

But I digress.

[Freddy]

In our state it's up to the representatives of the schools sitting on the Representative Council to approve whatever changes come down from above. And the schools in our state are very disinclined to adopt what most here consider unfunded mandates ordered by the state but paid for by the schools. In this category would fit the shot clock. Given the fact that the average time of team control before a shot goes up now is about 7.34 seconds, the last thing they'll want a device installed to slow the teams down, which is what the shot clock would do, I estimate. The typical team on the floor now is so heavily compelled to play at a pace so far above their skill level as it is. I can't imagine the chaos that would develop beyond the chaos that's already prevalent from the adoption of a system to compel them to rush themselves even more.
My $.02. (From someone who has zero influence over the issue anyway.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yet AGAIN the NFHS ignores the most important rules changes, which I have tried submitting through my state (the only "legit" way to submit rules changes), instead opting for lesser changes. The most important changes are, in order:



1. Changing the goaltending rule to mimic NBA/NCAA-M/NCAA-W/FIBA (every f-ing major rule set) where you cannot block the ball once it has touched the backboard. This is an easy rule change, easy to call, easy to write, and it blows my mind they haven't done it.



2. Eliminating the INANE "resumption of play procedure". Putting the ball down is an EASY way to piss off players, coaches, and fans and even if the team is extremely late makes the ref crew look terrible. Give us the option to assess a delay-of-game warning like every other reasonable rule set out there.



3. Eliminating the need for a coach to sit down after a direct or indirect technical foul. I get the reasoning but it pisses off the coaches and makes refs a) less likely to call technical fouls on the coach/bench and b) less likely to have the balls and make the coach sit after the tech. And even if they are told to sit they are terrible at remembering and almost never get a second one for standing.



4. Point of emphasis for schools properly marking coaching box and officials enforcing it. I have seen SO MANY games this year with the floor not marked properly, not all the chairs inside the team area, coaches on the floor yelling at officials, coaches camping at halfcourt to coach offense/defense on other side of the floor, and assistant coaches standing and in one case in my game coming out of the head coaching box to call a play at half court. I heard many times this season "you're the only one to enforce this all year" and that's wrong.



There are other ones: delayed violation for player running OOB, re-subbing once the ball has become live instead of sit-a-tick, requiring two horns for replacements intervals and officials calling techs when coaches slow roll a replacement sub, restricted area, shot clock (gonna have way more stoppages due to shitty operators), changing full timeouts to 75 seconds, allowing the headbands with extensions for girls (so dumb that pro and college allow it yet it's a "safety issue" in HS), clarifying the team control rule for fouls during throw-ins only.



But I digress.

Your #3 is on the list and I'm with you. I'd remove the seatbelt rule after a technical in a heartbeat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

3. Eliminating the need for a coach to sit down after a direct or indirect technical foul. I get the reasoning but it pisses off the coaches and makes refs a) less likely to call technical fouls on the coach/bench and b) less likely to have the balls and make the coach sit after the tech. And even if they are told to sit they are terrible at remembering and almost never get a second one for standing.

As the currently longest sitting member of this Forum, I respectfully disagree. Why? Because the loss of the Coaching Box has been in the Rules for almost as long as I have been officiating. I understand your frustration, but I have never really cared if the HC was upset that he lost the Coaching Box because he/she has only one person to blame: Himself/herself! HCs know what the Rule is; they just want to complain about another inequity that the Officials have imposed upon him/her.

MTD, Sr.

[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.

[Kansas Ref]

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.

*And added to this, the prospect of us having to constantly monitor if Coach happens to stand up during the game after having been seat-belted. I've had Coaches stand up, catch themselves, and sit back down quickly during a close game--but not out of outright deficance to us, but rather just as an involuntary response. It's more of a distraction to us officials.

Even had a scoretable woman come tell me during the fourth qtr of a close game (and I paraphrase): "Mr. Referee, I saw Coach Smith stand up to shout out directions once when you and your referees were focused on the game, just thought I'd let you know." I just thanked here and let it go, honestly.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.