2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is what I want, a game that is more player-centered than coach-centered. As an official, it is easier for me in a player-centered game, because I can focus more on playcalling than on having to talk to the coaches and policing their behavior. In my experience, coaches tend to misbehave more than players do, so minimizing interactions between coaches and officials is better for my sanity as well. This is the reason why college basketball, even though its rules committee is dominated by coaches, has the rules and mechanics it does (shot clock, only players call live-ball timeouts, officials go opposite the table after reporting fouls, to avoid confrontations with coaches).

I can tell you do not work college basketball because college coaches control everything at that level. As a matter of fact, based on what you said, college basketball is not for you either. Only the NBA and that takes a tremendous amount of being more than a play-caller to become one of those in today's era. You either have to have the look and the demeanor or you will not be there at all.

Also if you think the more you worry about play-calling is what will help you, then you are in for a rude awakening when you or if you ever get to those levels. Play-calling is a small part of that battle. You better learn how to deal with people and situations more so than calling a block-charge. I am not talking about what happens at the Division 1 level either. NAIA has a lot of challenges that you will never see at the high school level for example from coaches and even players. Actually, players do not say as much at the college level because they are heavily in the control of the coaches. If they act up the coach will not play them or remove them from the team. The coaches essentially pick them or give them an opportunity and the players are well aware of that in most cases.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is why I prefer rules that give players more control over the game, as opposed to coaches. Having to divide my attention between action on the court and benches affects my ability to properly call the plays in front of me, especially when i have to verify that it is the HEAD coach calling the timeout, that there is player control, etc. In the time that takes, there might have been a foul, a score, a violation, or something else, and then for me to take that away and call the timeout leaves me looking like a doofus. If only players can call live-ball timeouts, my job is easier, because I can see which player called the timeout, and verify that he has control of the ball while officiating him and the on-ball defender. A shot clock is also better, because it is an objective instrument to measure possessions, rather than the 5-second count, which is arbitrary, and depends on an official's interpretation of 6 feet, a team's defensive strategy, the official's mood, etc. It also gives more control to the players, because it requires them to stay engaged and try to play offense and defense for the entire game. As an official, the shot clock makes my job easier, because it keeps me aware of the time in the game, it gives me a read on the 10-second count (whether a visible proxy to the 10-second count (possession was obtained at 29, so violation will be at 19), or the official 10-second count), and it may allow me to not worry as much about closely guarded counts, depending on the rule set. If I don't have to worry about a visible 10-second count, I can get a wider angle for officiating transition, and pick up more plays than just the ball handler as Trail, assist with the 10-second count while picking up additional plays as the Center official, or be more situation-aware as the Lead while moving to position with the 1st wave of players. Finally, I like the shot clock, because it reduces the occurrence of the stall-and-foul strategy at the end of games (aggressive fouling on defense only happens in shot clock games near the time when the shot clock turns off, and if the defensive team needs more possessions than the number of possessions that remain). This reduction in the stall-and-foul strategy does not force me to alter my judgement on contact in the final minutes by calling fouls that would be marginal at best at other times of the game, and does not require me to make as many snap decisions between common or intentional fouls that many officials refuse to make in accordance with the rules, despite repeated points of emphasis from the NFHS about calling intentional fouls in the final minutes of games. The shot clock also rewards players for proper offensive and defensive play, rebounding, and punishes then for fouls, so it is a good way for players to learn how to play basketball better from natural, in-game consequences. The restricted area is a safety rule (by requiring players who take charges to be outside the basket, it affords offensive players more of an opportunity to stop before contact, reducing injuries to offensive and defensive players from crashing in close proximity to the basket), and as such, it can benefit the game.

I just came back from 3 weeks of camping for college-level evaluators. I can tell you that they talked very little overall about play calling. Clinicians talked about our demeanor, our teamwork, who actually made the call, how we handled a coach. They even talked about our fitness and positioning, even when the ball was not live. They did not spend a lot of time on play calling or if we got that block-charge right. They talked about whistle cadence and why did you even have a call at all on that play? Those are not the issues you stated that you want to worry about. You always make it sound like there are no issues what so ever at the other levels about how they handle rules or things that you call arbitrary like 5 seconds (which still applies at the NCAA level) or post play which has rules about where and when you can make contact with your armbar and how much pressure is being put on the ball handler. All additional things you have to think about when officiating that level of game. You act like these are something that never come into play but for a few rules differences.

Peace

[Rich]

I find it amusing that there are those who say they are "athlete-centered" or "player-centered" - this is a game played by teenagers as part of the educational experience.

I have yet to hear anyone ever say that they wish math class was more learner-centered.

When you read between the lines, most people who want a shot clock do so because it eliminates those contests where a smart coach figures out how to suck the air out of a game in order to compete with a more talented team. And what, exactly, is wrong with that? It's a great life lesson when kids realize that having the most physical talent isn't the only thing that goes into making a great team.

Frankly, it takes a lot more feel for the game to officiate it as it is now. What some on this thread seem to advocate for is to reduce or eliminate the amount of judgment we have to make -- to take some of the art out of officiating in favor of more science.

And my first reaction to that is that maybe some of those officials just aren't that good at the art of calling a game and want to make it easier on themselves.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Rich

I have yet to hear anyone ever say that they wish math class was more learner-centered.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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 changes, not 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Exactly! The shot clock is more conducive to making game play more about player choices ...

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.