To Be Clear ...
 

Agree, just bringing up another minor problem, one that I do not want the NFHS to fix.

Note: Ray Charles is dead, how about Little Stevie Wonder?

Say, how about a little Little Stevie Wonder?

https://youtu.be/9Vjj6J7gXpY

Weird. Helping teachers figure out how to do that in all subject areas is basically my job now. Its also been the major theme of every professional learning opportunity our school district has been offering for years, and there are academic research on how to do it effectively dating back 30 years.

Student cemtered was the wrong phrase. Minimizing the role of the teacher would've been better. I'm an educator, BTW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Student centred learning changes the role of educator in the room and learning process. Not about the specific lesson or classroom the teacher wants, but rather the content and questions the students care about with the teacher building in the structure and supports to have them meet outcomes.

When people say player centred I assume they mean the same thing. Decision making, game play, practice style, being more about player goals, choices, control and experience. The role of coach changesnot diminished or minimized.

Exactly! The shot clock is more conducive to making game play more about player choices, control, and experience, because more players get actual game time playing offense and defense with a shot clock than without one. Players would also enjoy the game more if they get to play basketball for the entire game, rather than being forced to resort to a strange mashup of Whac-a-Mole and keepaway at the end.

From a coach's perspective, it would be easier to encourage your players during a timeout to say "Give me 30 more seconds, and we have a chance to play offense" than to play the cat-and-mouse game that is almost required to obtain possession in the final 3-4 minutes of a game without a shot clock.

From an official's perspective, I wouldn't have to make as many key decisions that could affect the game in the last few minutes (common foul vs intentional foul on fouls to stop the clock). I personally do not agree with the mindset of "don't make any decisions that can affect the game", but I can understand some officials' reluctance to rule intentional fouls in end-of-game situations. During the rest of the game, I would also have an easier time making 10-second calls, because I can use the shot clock, either officially or unofficially, as a point of reference. If a coach says "You counted too fast", I say "Shot clock said 30 when you got the ball. It's at 19 now. 10 seconds are up." The shot clock has also allowed certain areas to eliminate the closely-guarded count on a dribbler (DC has no closely guarded count on a dribbler, same as NCAA and FIBA), which can be an arbitrary call, because different officials have different interpretations of 6 feet.

When a team has possession is unambiguous (a player holding or dribbling the ball inbounds), so deciding when to start the shot clock is easier than deciding to start a 10-second count, just like the 40-second play clock in football is easier to administer (start play clock when previous play ends) than the 25-second play clock (have ball on ground, and wait for the Referee to blow his whistle). If I do happen to have a bad operator, I can just switch the timer and shot clock operator, or get someone who actually pays attention if needed.

Why Diminish The Role Of Adult Coaches …
 

What's wrong with adult coaches coaching high school kids? It's high school, where kids go to learn. The school is loaded with adult teachers teaching kids, including teachers teaching basketball. Student choices? Does the kid sitting in trigonometry class decide if he wants to learn about, and practice using, sines, and cosines, or does the adult teacher guide the juvenile student, teaching him, giving him various opportunities to practice, testing him for success, and going over it again if there's little success?

Why diminish the role, or drastically change the role, of adult coaches in high school sports? To what end?

Kids learn how to play a sport as integral part of their total high school educational experience. Their friends and parents enjoy watching them play. A very small group of kids play well enough to play in college, some even earn a full or partial college scholarship. An even smaller group of talented athletes may make a profession out of a sport, if not playing, then coaching, scouting, advertising, media, sportscasting, licensing, writing, administrator, marketing, sales, equipment, clothing, etc. Those that don't play beyond high school at least know enough about the sport to become educated, well informed, life long fans, some may even become officials.

Except for a few small blemishes, what's wrong with high school sports as they exist today?

You know what they say about things that ain't broke.

And all of that means absolutely nothing. Who cares what the learning is centered? Sorry, but that has nothing to do with what rule is used or not used in a game that is played at the high school level. Just worked a few weeks of travel/AAU games with a shot clock and coaches still ran the damn games the way they saw fit. It changed nothing but made them shoot sooner in an possession which half the time you did not notice anyway. This entire idea that somehow the game is so much better is silly. I can be that there are many around the country that do not see some of the ball that I see and there is no need for a shot clock in those games now. And that has nothing to do with other college rules like the RA or when bonus resets. These are just things that people assume are going to help the game in their minds. That is why the NCAA is not taking on many rules people think they would because the Men's side actually makes money, not lose it so these changes affect other elements of the marketing of the game. And having used the shot clock this weekend with a lot of high school only officials, it was not done smoothly either. At least when you add elements of shot clock resets or what stops the clock like a foul in the backcourt verse the frontcourt.

Peace

Police Blotter ...
 

It's often been said, it's better to see a kid's name published in the sports section of the local newspaper than in the police blotter.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=194&h=167

anything that goes around the head is a headband, seems to be a simple thing I have been doing for years. Pre wrap, wrapped around the head is a head band and must meet the color requirements

So Easy ...
 

So easy a NFHS director of sports and officials and liaison to the Basketball Rules Committee can do it.

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=353&h=185

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Nothing wrong with coaches coaching and teachers teaching. The idea behind rule changes, like policy changes or changes pedagogical practices in regards to impact on game coaching/teaching is a) to not allow practitioners or practices to become outdated b) to best serve the students and make learning more appropriate and authentic. c)prioritize student experience

Changing role of coach/teacher does not inherently diminish it. Simply changes where effort and energy is put. If technology can deliver content than teachers can spend more time and energy working with individuals, remediating and enriching. If coaches don't have to spend time controlling/limiting possessions then they can spend that time and energy on making their players better at performing in the possessions they have. Time on players/technique teaching vs time on tactic design and execution.

1+1=2
Imagine going to school to visit your son’s math teacher. The teacher informs you that your son does a very good job with addition, but does not handle subtraction very well. As a result the teacher has decided that your son will not do any more subtraction for the rest of the year. He will just focus on the things he does well. His poor scores on subtraction are hurting the class average. The teacher also informs you that since he will not be doing subtraction it will make no sense to introduce multiplication and division. So you need to resign yourself to the fact that your son will only be able to do addition.

How would you respond as a parent? What would you think about this teacher’s ability to teach math?

Take the same situation to the basketball court. The coach informs you that your son is not going to be allowed to shoot the ball. His poor shooting percentage is hurting the team’s average. He will only be allowed to play defence. The coach will not be introducing any advanced skills with the ball because your son will always be a role player. The team is going to run plays that highlight only those players who can shoot.

Asking a coach to develop players to make decisions and play makers vs teaching kids to run plays and hold the ball is different not diminishing. Some would argue it increases the coaches role value because they have to be able to develop kids not just move kids who can play around. Teaching kids to play and make decisions and then letting them play at game time. Don't see a lot of teachers calling timeout in the middle of the test and scripting the next 3 question answers for everyone or saying everyone just copy Jimmy's answers we'll get better test scores.

Coaching Philosophy ...
 

I coached middle school basketball for over twenty-five years. I always worked on shooting at practice, every day, for everyone on the team, good shooters, and bad shooters. And short players (and tall players) always worked on rebounding skills, and tall players (and short players) always worked on ball handling skills, every day. Weak hand dribbling and weak hand shooting, every day, for everybody. Offensive oriented players (and defensive oriented players) were taught and practiced how to become better defensive players, while defensive oriented players (and offensive oriented players) were taught and practiced how to become better offensive players. Everybody learned how to set, and more importantly, how to use screens.

Unlike a few other sports, basketball is a sport where players have to be able to play both offense and defense at the same time.

Everybody on the team was taught all aspects of our offensive and defensive sets. Our center was expected to be able to play the point guard position, and our point guard was expected to be able to play the center position.

Ten players were guaranteed to play in every game, some for just a few minutes, and some for a lot of minutes. Nobody played thirty-two. Some of the younger players on the end of the bench knew that they may have to sit out the game unless we got way ahead near the end.

My play book was small, with only a few set plays, seldom designed for a single player. We lost some games because of that, and that's on me, but we won a lot of games because my players were often more skilled in a helter skelter middle school style game, especially toward the end of the season.

During games, we ran some plays to win games with the players that we had on the roster, and on the court at the time, winning (and losing) with our players doing what they did best, some shooters, some rebounders, some defenders, some passers, some dribblers, some screeners, etc.

During my senior year of high school, I don't think that I took a single field goal attempt from more than ten feet away, and seldom dribbled more than three or four times in succession. That wasn't the best way for the coach to utilize my talents to help the team win games. My job was to get rebounds, set good screens, and play good defense, that's what I did best, yet I still averaged about fifteen points a game. I would have loved to score more points, but that wouldn't have given my team a better chance to win games. I was never told what not to do, I was just told what to do (but I kind of knew that if I took a twenty footer, or tried to dribble through a trap, that I'd be sitting on the bench next to the coach).

As a freshman, I was the worst player on the freshman team roster, and only got into games when we were way ahead, or way behind. As a sophomore and junior I split time with varsity players who had similar skills as mine. As a senior I played as long as I could stay out of foul trouble (I was sometimes a little too aggressive). Of course I wanted to play more my first three years, but that wouldn't have given the team its best chance to win.

I know that there are other good coaching philosophies (one opposing coach in my league always played his five best players for the entire game unless they got into foul trouble, and he ran several set plays for his star players, he was usually successful against me), but what's wrong with the coaching philosophy I played under and coached with (double digit wins almost every year, players ready for high school basketball after playing in my program)?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=409&h=189

Serious question. What is with just the memo? No POE or commentary on the rules beyond what we got? Is the NF changing the way they were doing things or is this just and oversight?

Peace

Naw, they're just late. The typical order NFHS releases of new stuff is:
1. News release describing generally the new rules.
2. Release of the exact wording of the new rules.
3. Comments on the Rules.
4. POE's.
5. Rules book in Ebook format.
6. Printed Rules book.
7. Casebook in Ebook format.
8. Printed Casebook.
Keep an eye on this site for the online publication of each of these steps, whatever order they choose to issue their releases: Basketball
They don't always follow the same order, nor are they as timely each and every year.