NFHS Shot Clock Guidelines ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But the current NFHS ten second rule doesn't fully allow for that.

But you are adding a completely different element into the game. So this is something that is used at levels that use the shot clock. Again, only applies if the shot clock is used. If not, then you do not have anything to worry about.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's most likely nit picking but it's also an unintended consequence of combining rule sets without attention to detail.

New NFHS shot clock guidelines say to start the shot clock and to use the shot clock for the ten second count on a "touch".

Current NFHS rules says to start the the ten second count on a "possession".

95-plus % of the time the "touch" and the "possession" will be at exactly the same time.

Again, I am aware of the difference, but if you do not have a shot clock there is no reason to worry about this. Because if you did have a shot clock and the time got to 25 and no violation, you would cause other issues or complaints. So why not put them together if using the shot clock? I think this was very intentional on the part of the NF. You would almost have to create two separate rules in the rulebook for something not used in many cases.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

5-minus % of the time the "touch" and the "possession" won't be the same and the "possession" may trail the "touch" by one, or more, seconds (muff, fumble, deflection, etc.).

The NFHS will eventually have to change its "use the shot clock for ten second count" guideline, or change the ten second rule from "possession" to "touch", to align the ten second rule with the new "mechanic".

No one said it would be the same. But again the NCAA and NBA already do this in their games. The officials do not have a visible count because the clock is the timing device used. That is why the rule also said to give a visible count when the shot clock is turned off or not being used (less than 35 seconds).

I am glad if they are implementing the shot clock, we do the same at all levels in this case.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So why not put them together if using the shot clock? I think this was very intentional on the part of the NF. You would almost have to create two separate rules in the rulebook for something not used in many cases.

Agree that the shot clock and ten second count should probably be used together (accuracy and similar to other rule sets familiar to many basketball stakeholders).

But if one is going to use the shot clock to "count" ten seconds (as it appears the NFHS want us to do) it's going to require some type of change in the existing ten second rule:

9-8: A player must not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of the ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

4-2: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball. A team is in control of the ball: When a player of the team is in control.

With no rule change there is a possibility of this worst case scenario.

State high school championship final game. Shot clock used. Team B 65, Team A 64. Fourth period. Fifteen seconds left in game. Both teams come out of a timeout. Team A, with no timeouts remaining, inbounds in their backcourt. Inbounder A1 passes to A2, who muffs (shot clock legally start on inbounds touch) the ball away, but eventuality, after two seconds pass (with deflections but no control by both teams), secures control of the ball by holding it and the begins to dribble. Facing strong defensive pressure in his backcourt, A2 is still in his backcourt when the shot clock is at 25 seconds (game clock at five seconds) and the trail official calls a ten second violation on Team A. Team A head coach politely argues that Team A only had "control" of the ball for approximately eight seconds (proven after game on videotape) in the backcourt, quoting 9-8 and 4-2, and should not have had the ten second violation called, depriving Team A of a chance to win the game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that the shot clock and ten second count should probably be used together (accuracy and similar to other rule sets familiar to many basketball stakeholders).

But if one is going to use the shot clock to "count" ten seconds (as it appears the NFHS want us to do) it's going to require some type of change in the existing ten second rule:

9-8: A player must not be, nor may his/her team be, in continuous control of the ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds.

4-2: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball. A team is in control of the ball: When a player of the team is in control.

With no rule change there is a possibility of this worst case scenario.

State high school championship final game. Shot clock used. Team B 65, Team A 64. Fourth period. Fifteen seconds left in game. Both teams come out of a timeout. Team A, with no timeouts remaining, inbounds in their backcourt. Inbounder A1 passes to A2, who fumbles (game clock and shot clock legally start) the ball away, but eventuality, after two seconds pass, secures control of the ball by holding it and the begins to dribble. Facing strong defensive pressure in his backcourt, A2 is still in his backcourt when the shot clock is at 25 seconds (game clock at five seconds) and the trail official calls a ten second violation on Team A. Team A head coach politely argues that Team A only had "control" of the ball for eight seconds in the backcourt, quoting 9-8 and 4-2, and should not have had the ten second violation called, depriving Team A of a chance to win the game.

You could solve all this with case plays or interpretations that deal with the issue. But I do not see why it matters if using the shot clock the rule says how to apply that rule and if you do not use the rule, everything stays the same? Not sure it matters at that point, that is all I am saying. And honestly, I do not see the NF making a rule for the shot clock (in the violations section) and then another rule in that same section for situations without a shot clock.

Then again, very aware of the difference and do not think it would be that hard if you are in a state that uses the shot clock. I think this would not be that hard for most of us either way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You could solve all this with case plays or interpretations that deal with the issue.

Agree. The NFHS has to do something.

Perhaps aligning it's ten second rule with that of the NCAA, or the NBA?

Not that I know what either of those rules (wording) may be.

Or perhaps the NFHS shot clock should start on inbounds "control" (holding, dribbling) rather than simply "touch"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. The NFHS has to do something.

Perhaps aligning it's ten second rule with that of the NCAA, or the NBA?

Not that I know what either of those rules may be.

Or perhaps the NFHS shot clock should start on inbounds "control" (holding, dribbling) rather than simply "touch"?

I already stated what was the NCAA and NBA rule. This document you posted clearly is using the same language as those levels. So nothing to change if you wish the touch to be the start of the shot clock and the reason to have a 10 second violation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So nothing to change if you wish the touch to be the start of the shot clock and the reason to have a 10 second violation.

Something has to change; rule, mechanic, caseplay, or interpretation; something.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You could solve all this with case plays or interpretations that deal with the issue.

Can't have touch, shot clock ten second mechanic, and current NFHS ten second rule coexisting with no change.

The NFHS can change and be exactly like the NCAA (or the NBA).

Or it can change the shot clock "rule" to "control" (holding, dribbling) rather than "touch".

I believe that either way would successfully work and get rid of this nit picking unintended consequence.

[JRutledge]

Once again, they already changed the rule if the shot clock is used. If you do not use the shot clock, you do not apply the "touch" feature. This is one part that sounded rather easy for me.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I already stated what was the NCAA and NBA rule.

I'm assuming you mean that both the NCAA and the NBA have a ten second rule (with, or without, a shot clock turned on) starting on the inbounds "touch" (as opposed to the NFHS inbounds "control").

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm assuming you mean that both the NCAA and the NBA have a ten second rule (with, or without, a shot clock turned on) starting on the inbounds "touch" (as opposed to the NFHS inbounds "control").

Obviously both us a shot clock but the wording you showed mirrored those rules set to do with the shot clock on and the shot clock off. I cannot speak directly for the NBA, but the NCAA uses the exact same language when the clock is on or the clock is off.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. The NFHS has to do something.

Perhaps aligning it's ten second rule with that of the NCAA, or the NBA?

Not that I know what either of those rules (wording) may be.

Or perhaps the NFHS shot clock should start on inbounds "control" (holding, dribbling) rather than simply "touch"?

Maybe that was one of the reasons that when conferences started experimenting with a shot clock decades ago, some of them started the clock only on front court possession.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Maybe that was one of the reasons that when conferences started experimenting with a shot clock decades ago, some of them started the clock only on front court possession.

Nice contribution to the thread. Thanks Robert Goodman.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

State high school championship final game. Shot clock used. Team B 65, Team A 64. Fourth period. Fifteen seconds left in game. Both teams come out of a timeout. Team A, with no timeouts remaining, inbounds in their backcourt. Inbounder A1 passes to A2, who fumbles (game clock and shot clock legally start on inbounds touch) the ball away, but eventuality, after two seconds pass (with deflections but no control by both teams), secures control of the ball by holding it and the begins to dribble. Facing strong defensive pressure in his backcourt, A2 is still in his backcourt when the shot clock is at 25 seconds (game clock at five seconds) and the trail official calls a ten second violation on Team A. Team A head coach politely argues that Team A only had "control" of the ball for approximately eight seconds (proven after game on videotape) in the backcourt, quoting 9-8 and 4-2, and should not have had the ten second violation called, depriving Team A of a chance to win the game.

A two second time difference shouldn't be just passed off as, "Sorry Coach, this is a shot clock game". The ten second rule with the language "in continuous control of the ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds" is a fundamental basketball rule that hasn't changed in over forty years. It should take more than just a one sentence guideline, "Use the shot clock to administer the 10-second backcourt count (9-8)" (that includes the actual unchanged existing rule citation) to overturn such a fundamental rule. It's an oversight with an unintended consequence, it has to be. Luckily, there are a few different ways to correct it. The NFHS tried to fit a round NCAA peg into a square NFHS hole, with little attention to detail (even JRutledge said that the language was very similar, I say maybe copied, with no regard for differing details and unintended consequences).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A two second time difference shouldn't be just passed off as, "Sorry Coach, this is a shot clock game". The ten second rule with the language "in continuous control of the ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds" is a fundamental basketball rule that hasn't changed in over forty years. It should take more than just a one sentence guideline, "Use the shot clock to administer the 10-second backcourt count (9-8)" (that includes the actual unchanged existing rule citation) to overturn such a fundamental rule. It's an oversight with an unintended consequence, it has to be. Luckily, there are a few different ways to correct it. The NFHS tried to fit a round NCAA peg into a square NFHS hole, with little attention to detail (even JRutledge said that the language was very similar, I say maybe copied, with no regard for differing details and unintended consequences).

When I have a discussion with a coach about when the count starts will likely be one of the first times that has ever happen. So if you have to go through all of that with a coach, it will be a very rare situation, to begin with. Kind of like discussing backcourt rules with coaches who never picked up a rulebook. And they never seem to understand the concept of team control and touching the ball last in the FC and first in the BC even if the ball was knocked away. So again if this is a state-adopted rule I seriously doubt I will have to point out what happens with games in a state that has adopted the rule for all levels (or at least the level we are discussing at the time). Not like we get a ton of cross-over games from each state and I even work in two different states.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When I have a discussion with a coach about when the count starts will likely be one of the first times that has ever happen.

One time for me, over thirty five years ago in a junior varsity game, obviously didn't involve a shot clock, but involved a mistake by me carelessly and erroneously continuing a five second throwin count after a successful free throw into a ten second backcourt count violation. The coach was paying attention to the game clock and he let me vehemently know about it, "The (game) clock only ticked down seven seconds", to the tune of a technical foul. I did apologize to him the next time I saw him after my partner and I figured it out on the ride home.

Good reason to switch hands when changing one count into an another.