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.

[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That being said, I don't see the rule getting repealed for the reason you state.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.

[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?

[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.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

If you say so.