2019 NFHS Questionnaire

[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.

[CJP]

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

[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.

[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.

[CJP]

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

[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.