2019 NFHS Questionnaire

[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.

[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.

[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?

[CJP]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

Depends on how much tolerance you have. I don't have much for a coach who already got his first T.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by CJP

Depends on how much tolerance you have. I don't have much for a coach who already got his first T.

That has nothing to do with the seatbelt rule.

In other words, the game improves because the coach got a T, not because he has to sit.

[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.