2019 NFHS Questionnaire
 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PCPHG9T


PART I – Checkup on present 2018-19 rules – Were the following rule changes satisfactory?

1. The ball shall have a deeply-pebbled, granulated surface, with horizontally shaped panels bonded tightly to the rubber carcass.

2. EXCEPTION: Any player located in the backcourt may recover a ball deflected from the frontcourt by the defense.


PART II – Observations – Have you observed any of the following this year?

1. An increase in rolling waistbands.

2. An increase in permission requests for religious attire waivers.

3. Lack of adherence to uniform rules (especially jersey).

4. Headbands that are wider than 2 inches.

5. Schools having problems finding competent individuals to occupy the required positions at the scorer's table (i.e., official scorer, official timer) at boys varsity contests.

6. Schools having problems finding competent individuals to occupy the required positions at the scorer's table (i.e., official scorer, official timer) at girls varsity contests.

7. Schools having problems finding competent individuals to occupy the required positions at the scorer's table (i.e., official scorer, official timer) at below varsity contests.

8. Inconsistent application of player uniform restrictions.

9. An increase in secondary defenders drawing player-control fouls near the basket.

10. An increase in excessive negative behavior by players or coaches after fouls have been committed.

11. An increase by officials to not make calls during contests, leading to more physical play (i.e., “passing on calls”).

12. An increase in sportsmanship issues toward officials.

13. An increase in time spent at the free-throw line.

14. An increase in number of visiting jerseys in light grey, silver, old gold, yellow, etc.

15. An increase in the number of hand-check fouls being called.

16. An increase in the number of games with one team possessing the ball for longer than 30 seconds before attempting a shot.

17. An increase in the number of three-point shots being attempted.

18. Traveling not being called.

19. An increase in the number of timer or scorer errors due to distraction or inexperience.

20. An increase in the number of times officials must stop the game to correct time/score.


PART III – About the rules for 2019-20 – Would you favor?

1. Permitting a shot clock for high school basketball.

2. Permitting a 35-second shot clock to be used at the varsity level in all contests after a specific phase-in period, with lower-level contests determined by the state associations.

3. By state association adoption, permitting a 35-second shot clock to be used at the varsity level in all contests, with lower-level contests determined by the state associations and the home state determining if a clock will be used in games involving teams from other states.

4. Eliminating restrictions on undergarment color including undershirts, sweat bands and other items.

5. Clarifying the rule regarding uniform shorts by stating that the manner in which shorts are worn, specifically the waistband, is determined by the player, provided the drawstring doesn't create a risk to the player or others, the restrictions on manufacturer logos are followed, and the wearing doesn't compromise the proper covering of the genital region.

6. Including a restricted arc in the lane to assist officials in making player-control foul calls.

7. Resetting the team foul count after each quarter and shooting two bonus free throws beginning with a team’s fifth foul each quarter.

8. Eliminating one-and-one bonus situations and awarding two free throws on the fifth and all subsequent fouls in each quarter.

9. Allowing a team warning for the first non-compliance offense of the (3-5) apparel rules when a team member who is attempting to enter the game or a player is discovered wearing non-compliant apparel.

10. Charging a team technical foul for non-compliance with (3-5) apparel rules, penalized when discovered while a team member is attempting to enter the game or discovered when a team member is playing.

11. Charging the head coach with a direct technical foul each time a member of his or her team member is discovered attempting to enter the game or playing while wearing non-compliant apparel.

12. Not requiring that a head coach be required to remain seated after the first direct or indirect foul that currently results in loss of coaching box privileges.

13. Starting each overtime period per the alternating-possession held ball arrow.

14. Allowing a head coach to request a time-out for substitution only.

15. By state association adoption, reducing the amount of team time-outs in games involving electronic media in which in media time-outs are requested.

16. Adding administrative technical fouls to include: scorebook leaving the table, official scorer wearing black-and-white striped shirt.

17. No “closely guarded” calls when dribbling.

18. Changing the closely guard distance to 3 feet.

19. Allowing dunking during pregame.

20. Increasing the width of the headband to allow up to 3 inches.

21. Allowing the coach or captain to request a defensive match-up.

22. Requiring the designated home team to wear dark jerseys and the designated visiting team to wear white jerseys.

23. Creating a rule that holds the head coach accountable for players wearing illegal apparel.

We all know that no more than a handful of these will get adopted or considered.

If I could have one of these it would easily be eliminating the seatbelt rule.

Shot clock and RA are solutions looking for problems.

Yes, eliminate color rules. I'm against any proposal of a technical foul/warning/etc. for fashion police stuff. Direct T on the head coach? Good luck getting officials to call that.

I don't care about resetting fouls each quarter. I'd actually prefer the HS game go to halves nationwide, but that won't happen.

Yes, allow dunking in warm-ups.

For the first proposed change on the questionnaire, the shot clock... drumroll ... GIVE ME A HELL, GIVE ME A YEAH! Stand up right now!
If I was only allowed to make 5 changes I would go shot clock, 2 shot bonus on 5th foul each quarter, no dunking ban in warmups, no closely guarded on a dribble, and 3 ft closely guarded distance.

Part II, Question #9
 

I was irritated that there was not a Comment Section.

Specifically:

Part II, Question #9: Have you observed any of the following this year? An increase in secondary defenders drawing player-control fouls near the basket.

The inclusion of this question indicates that the person or committee does not understand the Fundamental Principle of the Guarding Rule: That A1 should expect to be Guarded from the instant that he/she gains PC of the Ball and to be Guarded continuously until he/she no longer has PC of the Ball. The FP means that if A1 eludes B1 that he/she expect to be immediately Guarded by B2. The FP means that there is no such thing as a "secondary defender".

This lack of knowledge of the FP is why the NCAA Men's and Women's Committees added such nonsense as: 1) the RA and 2) the definition of "secondary defender", as well as the Women's Committee defining an area of the Court as the Lower Defensive Block.

I am stepping down from my soap box and going to bed now. Good night all and sweet dreams!

MTD, Sr.

The concept of a secondary defender exists in HS basketball and is covered directly in the mechanics manual.

The momentum is there - I predict there will be a restrictied area in NFHS rules in the next 3-5 years and a shot clock will be blessed -- by state association -- adoption in a similar timeframe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

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.

The NFHS committee seems determined to make the HS game more like college in light of recent year proposals and rule changes - especially those proposals that haven't been adopted apparently reappearing again this year.


If they really want to bring something from the college game, how about giving us officials some of the expanded signals that are more descriptive and more appropriate for certain calls such as:

• Multiple touches/two hands on a ball handler.
• POV violation (commonly known here as "The Frankenstein")
• Chucking a cutter
• Hit to the head
• Hooking
• Staying or going away for a rebounding foul
• etc.

And it also seems every time NFHS tweaks the Fashion Police rules into something that makes sense it later decides to make wholesale changes that create more confusion than what existed previously. :(


Must of the questions got a verbal "Why?" or "Who cares?" as I read them. Too bad those weren't answer options.

Shot Clock Thoughts
 

My shot clock experience:

1) Women's college basketball (NAGWS and NCAA Women's) from 1974 to 2008,

2) Men's jr. college/NAIA and NCAA Div. III jr. var.) from 1993 to 2008,

3) Girls' H.S. (CIF) from 1982-84, and

4) USA Basketball (FIBA) from 1992 to 2002 (1999 Special Olympics World Summer Games).


I had absolutely no problem officiating games using a Shot Clock. That said, I do not like a Shot Clock. Lets start from January 01, 1950, just in the United States and Canada alone, there have been millions upon millions basketball games played at the H.S. level, men's college level (pre-Shot Clock era), and AAU and YBOA youth tournaments. The number of "slow down" games as they are called are too insignificant to make the Shot Clock a necessity.

Every time a "slow down" game makes the news there is an out cry for the need for a Shot Clock. There is no need for a Shot Clock at the H.S. and youth level and that includes FIBA Rules, and personally, I do not see the need for a Shot Clock in either men's and women's college but that is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.

I guess I am old school when I say that I see no problem with a team taking the air out of the Ball at the end of the game to preserve the win.

Just the two cents of an old man, LOL.

MTD, Sr.

Overall take away, it is clear that someone is considering penalizing the coach for uniform violations like waistbands. I think that is the only way this can be resolved. Put this on the coaches and if they coaches get penalized, then it will stop. Coaches act like they have no idea now what players are wearing. I wish ultimately this was out of our hands, but something needs to be done if there are going to be rules about what players wear.

I also really am not feeling this talk about a shot clock. I work enough college games where this is always an issue and we have no monitor to resolve these problems. And in many cases when we have an issue, there is a play-by-play record or even some media that can help us correct such issues. I really think this is going to be a disaster at the high school level. And please do not tell me that this works well in your area and maybe there are only a handful of schools using them. In HS this would be all over the place potentially and more games to find out all the mistakes or problems. Often at the college level, it is not someone that is very skilled or even paid very well to do the shot clock. We will have issues where someone loses a big playoff game because of some shot clock mistake.

Peace

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

Frankly I’m neutral on seatbelt. But I do think it’s reasoning is sound: act like a child enough to get a tech, be treated like a child and have to sit down. But yes, it is a little silly for lots of reasons previously stated.

Even if they add a T on the head coach, many officials simply won't enforce it.

But coaches aren't children. I don't tolerate misbehavior and I expect sportsmanship rules to be followed, but at the same time treating coaches like kids doesn't help the situation at all. Emotion is a part of the game and sometimes it crosses the line, but that doesn't mean we should have to monitor the coach the rest of the game.

True, but I feel like the addition of the book warning gives officials enough tools to deal with coaches in a non-confrontational manner. Once a T is necessary, I have no issue with the added "penalty" of seat-belting (granted, I wouldn't cry if it was eliminated either).

As for the rest of this survey, I voted against the shot clock and against all fashion police rules. Granted I only do F/JV for now, so perhaps some of these issues present themselves differently at the V level. However, the only fashion police question we as officials should need to answer is "does the player's equipment present a safety issue?".

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.

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.

Close but not quite correct. The TECH is what causes the coach to focus more on coaching, not the act of having to sit down. And refs would call more techs if it didn’t require having to go over there and tell the coach to sit.

Whether the coach sits on his own or not it irrelevant — we have to tell him. Otherwise he can claim he never was told and create a pain in the ass when we tech him later for standing.

I think it is a little of both. Probably also depends on the coach

Maybe this is a local thing, but almost universally in my area, we do not make a point of going to tell the coach. They all know and most of them find a seat without being told. If they don't find a seat by the time the ball is in play, the official who passes by will remind them. Or the first time they stand up we will remind them.

That may be true. But a coach, not knowing who might or might not enforce it, will be unlikely to just take his chances. It would be much easier to just ensure the players are legal.

I would argue that you too are close but not quite correct. You're right about the Tech being the cause of coaches focusing on coaching, however I think there are very few techs if any not called because the official doesn't want to make the coach sit down. I've never once considered that when making a decision as to what to call. So would removal of the seatbelt allow officials to call more techs? I'd like to hope not. That should have no part of the decision. If a coach is acting out of line, then use the tools you have the way they are intended.

Now with all that said, the discussion in this thread has actually moved me from pro-seatbelt rule to neutral. A lot of good points made for eliminating it, especially the idea that it would be one less thing distracting us from actually calling the game, but I do agree with Paintguru's point that the bench warning option eases any guilt that some (not me) might feel about a seatbelt rule. I'm still in favor of the rule for now, but I'm riding the fence a bit.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Any game where the clock stays running for long periods of time is usually a good one - slowdown games included. :D
-
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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Step By Step ...
 

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.

Bigger Punishment ...
 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

If you say so.

I don't see that without the shot clock more than 1-2 times a year....it is a solution looking for a problem.

I cannot remember the last time I have seen a team hold the ball for 2 minutes in my career. I have certainly had it happen, but we are talking over 10 years ago. And the only time I see a team hold the ball for more than 30 or 40 seconds, is so they get the last shot in the quarter. That is actually very common in college games too more than high school.

I love how the narrative is to suggest this is something going on all the time when it simply is not the case.

Peace

I don't understand why the pro-shot clock crowd talks about how awful stalling is but never says anything about the defenses sitting back and not making any attempt to get a count or force action.

Shot Clock and Lack of Sufficient Action.
 

Since most everyone knows my position with regard to Shot Clocks, my suggestion is to bring back the Lack of Sufficient Action Rule with one tweak bring back the Mid-Court and Forecourt Areas to make the Rule easier to adjudicate.

MTD, Sr.

And We'll Need A Ladder Too ...
 

And don't forget the peach baskets. We gotta get the peach baskets back.

I love your nostalgia on these things, but they are not bringing back that rule. They will put in the shot clock before they bring back that silly rule.

Peace

That's been my experience at the college level. HC gets a T and pretty much STFU the rest of the game and sticks to coaching.

That may be true in your area, but not in mine. Saying it's a solution looking for a problem does not make it true for the whole high school basketball playing population.

In our area, it was common to see a team pass/hold a ball for 1-2 minutes at the end of a quarter or game to get the last shot.

I understand that adding the shot clock to areas where 2 man crews are the norm may make it harder, but if you work 3 man, the shot clock doesn't have much effect on the officials. If you can't handle adding the shot clock, well.......

It's wasn't all the time, but was VERY COMMON in my area. I don't know if it's lack of skillful players or coaching philosophy in this area, but teams were more than happy to hold onto the ball for 1-2 minutes to get the last shot.

Some of you(not necessarily you personally) veteran, decorated officials are acting like the addition of a shot clock substantially changes your job. I'm surprised at the reaction. Is it because you work primarily 2 man crews?

It's not out of the question to have a quality team be very capable of passing the ball around and dribbling around for 1-2 minutes if the defense forces the action.

Good for them. Seriously. They should be allowed to continue to do so.

Absolutely! That's not inactivity, that's not a game killer. I don't know why we seem determined to force teams out of a possession.

I have been working 3 person for over 20 years for every varsity contest. And I have one college ball for about 15 of those years. Working college took some time to get used to the little idiosyncrasies and does change some basic things you have to watch. We have officials at the high school level that struggle with just the clock. Now you want to add a very specific element to the game that will influence games, especially near the end if you mess up a basic reset or reset when there is not possession. I can tell you that this is a problem at the small college level where they have multiple table people and even a play-by-play record and people keeping other information. We are lucky at the high school level to get 3 good people at the table and even then we have to correct them. I just do not think this is necessary to make the game better. We will just have multiple stoppages and corrections I would rather not have people that cannot rotate well, asking them to now look at the clock more.

Again, I have no huge problem personally with the shot clock. It is probably coming, but there are officials I do not trust to get these things right. And I certainly do not trust the table people to get things right with people who are basically fans trying to run this system. Heck just having a system where "recall" is used is a must a lot of time. Instead of hearing about slow down games, we will hear about shot clock situations as we hear about at the D1 level and officials that are much more experienced miss a basic shot clock situation and they have a monitor. We will not have a monitor. Good luck with that as stated.

Peace

Another rule change I would like to see is changing the requirement for the book to be ready at the 10 minute mark. How many times is the book anywhere near ready in a pre-season tournament when the teams only have 10 minutes or so to warm up?

I suppose it needs to be done and set for bookkeepers to not be rushed at the end, and coaches to figure defensive match-ups, but maybe move it to the 3 or 5 minute mark. I think few officials strictly enforce it now because its looked at as a bookkeeping thing that has no real impact on the game. Sort of like the rule change of going OOB to avoid a screen was changed from a T to a violation because no one would call it, maybe making it a more reasonable time would help.

And btw, I'm not looking to call it then either, but it feels odd to seemingly set aside a rule when teams don't have ample warm-up time. It would be just nice to be consistent regardless of the circumstances.

The book doesn't have to be ready by 10 minutes. The requirement is for the team to supply the scorer with a numbered roster and designate the starting five. Whether that information is recorded properly in the book at that point is irrelevant.

The book doesn't have to be ready at 10 minutes. The teams only have to have provided their roster and designated their starters by the time. If the scorer is just slow in getting the info transferred it's not a technical foul.

This is why I don't understand why some officials are so anal about going over at 12ish minutes to "correct anything before you have to give a T." There is nothing that says you have to give a T if the official book isn't completely filled out at 10:00.

Unfortunately many officials just simply don't know the rule.

What if said officials are going over to make sure that the roster and 5 starters has been submitted to the scorer and they aren't necessarily checking the book? If you can go over around the 12 minute mark and check that, you can remind the coaches to submit their roster and 5 starters to the table by the 10 minute mark. However long it takes the scorer to transfer the information to the official book is irrelevant. By doing that, you are avoiding a T.

Perhaps but in my experience most R's are going over to sign the book, not to just make sure teams have submitted the required info. And many have the notion that the book must be ready at 10:00.

And for the record, I sign the book at 10:00 if it's ready, but if it's not I'm not standing over the scorer's shoulder waiting for him/her to get everything in.

I usually go over between 11:00 and 12:00 to make sure both teams have submitted rosters with starters. Then I go back to sign it if the scorer has not finished copying everything in the book.

Why not sign it there when you there the first time? Your signature in the book has nothing to do with it being filled out. It is just identifying who the officials were for the game.

Different areas have different requirements and meanings on this.

I put a line after the last name and initial the line. Now, I can see if someone was added afterwards (recognizing that there might be a legitimate reason to do so). So, I need the book completed before I can do that.

The book just has to be ready when the game starts honestly. And if you requrire the book to be ready before then, you are putting that on people that might not be associated with the teams or have an interest to get the book done before that time. I have literally had scorebook people get up and not come back until a minute before game time and both teams submitted all their information. And in one case, the scorekeeper did not put any of the information in the book correctly, so we literally had several players from both teams not listed properly.

All I do is when the book is filled out, I have the coach sign off on the fact that all information is correct. Then if there is a mistake or they find something, they can have it corrected immediately without any penalty. I do this so that we do not have a player not listed or the wrong started listed and someone is claiming there should be a penalty. It also puts the responsibility on the coaches so that they cannot tell me later, "We gave them this list and they copied that list instead." This is especially true during tournaments where the host school or entity is not playing the game at hand.

For the record, I only sign the book when all of this is done. I do not want anyone claiming I saw something and allowed it to take place. Just another way to cover all the bases of the recording information.

Peace

Back in my days as a manager everybody(or so it except us) played zone. So late in games where we had leads or were trying to get a last shot we pulled the ball out to force them out of the zone. AND if the game went OT and we won the tip and the other team played zone we pulled it out to make them come out and play man. Once we changed leagues our strategy changed as almost everybody in the other league played man.

We have had a shot clock in Maryland for 2 years now. It works well. I would say I have had about 3 shot clock violations and I work about 50 games a year here it is used. It makes the game easier in the last 2 or 3 minutes, where I have seen teams with a lead, in the past, stall from the 3 minute mark.

This is why so many of us think the shot clock is not necessary. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.

To me, this is just the sign of Maryland teams getting used to playing with a shot clock. In DC, I have also had shot clock violations in my games, although most have come without them. I have also (informally) timed games across the bridge in VA with a shot clock, and I have noticed between 2 and 5 shot clock violations per game on average. There tend to be more shot cook violations in girls games, and in the playoffs, in my experience.

How much time is on the shot clock? 30, 35 seconds?

While I'm not generally in favor of a shot clock in HS, your conclusion from Terrapins Fan's experience is not valid. The mere presence of the shot clock would have changed the behavior. For your conclusion to be valid, the shot clock would have to have been a secret to the players and coaches, not knowing it was there at all.

I am generally against the clock, but where it would help is near the end of the game where teams will not foul as quickly and try to get a 30 second stop.

Not sure that's worth the initial cost or ongoing expense.

I have used a 30-second shot clock to time the possessions. Most violations would remain violations, whether I had used a 30 or a 35-second shot clock.
MD hadn't had that issue, because girls basketball has used a shot clock since the 1970s. DC started acquiring (and using) shot clocks since 2015, with many new gyms having built-in shot clocks as part of their equipment. Those that don't have their own gyms, or have older gyms, use portable shot clock units. We somehow make it work, and there hasn't been pushback against the shot clock once it was adopted.

Thanks for the response, sorry, what I meant was how much time does DC have in high school? Do they use similar rules as college as far as a kicked ball reset, etc.?

DC uses 30 seconds, with a 15-second reset for kicked/fisted balls. MD is the same way.