NFHS Shot Clock Guidelines ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see this as an issue or a hybrid situation. I see this if you use the shot clock then the shot clock takes over for the 10-second violation usage.

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

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.

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, 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 non-visual count (use the shot clock) "mechanic".

[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").

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 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.

9-8 wasn't changed (as far as I know, maybe we'll have to wait for the new rulebooks), still "control", no exceptions listed.

What I'm viewing as a shot clock guideline mechanic JRutledge is viewing as a full fledged NFHS rule change.

That's the rub.

Now I get it (JRutledge's viewpoint). That's why we disagree. But now I can see his side.

JRutledge is saying that the shot clock guideline ten second mechanic "trumps" 9-8 in games with a shot clock.

Two different ten second rules for two different games, with a shot clock, and without a shot clock.

Still disagree, but I get it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-8 wasn't changed (as far as I know, maybe we'll have to wait for the new rulebooks), still "control", no exceptions listed.

What I'm viewing as a shot clock guideline mechanic JRutledge is viewing as a full fledged NFHS rule change.

That's the rub.

Now I get it (JRutledge's viewpoint). That's why we disagree. But now I can see his side.

JRutledge is saying that the shot clock guideline ten second mechanic "trumps" 9-8 in games with a shot clock.

Two different ten second rules for two different games, with a shot clock, and without a shot clock.

Still disagree, but I get it.

To me this is a solution looking for a problem. If your state never uses a shot clock, not an issue is it? You do not need the same rule for both situations.

It is like the mercy rule or the state finals using video replay. If you are not in those places that uses such situations, you really do not have to worry about the differences. And maybe states will set up some guidelines anyway both rules and mechanically.

Peace

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If your state never uses a shot clock, not an issue is it? You do not need the same rule for both situations ... If you are not in those places that uses such situations, you really do not have to worry about the differences.

Again, I see your point if you're viewing shot clock guideline mechanics as a full fledged NFHS rule change, with two different ten second rules for two different games, with a shot clock, and without a shot clock, with the shot clock guideline ten second mechanic "trumping" 9-8 in games with a shot clock.

Conversely, I just see this as an oversight, and unintended consequence, very typical for the NFHS I've come to love and hate over the past forty years.

I will be attending the IAABO International Fall Seminar, September 29, 2021 through October 3, 2021, in Trumbull, Connecticut. The “Gang of Four” IAABO co-interpreters will be hosting a presentation on rule changes, editorial revisions, points of emphasis, and manual changes. I will be sure to bring up this shot clock mechanic and its conflict with the current ten second rule. Of course, as usual, it will only be an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the NCAA uses the exact same language when the clock is on or the clock is off.

I was actually more concerned about the NCAA ten second rule language than I was about the NCAA shot clock language. Does the NCAA ten second rule start on the inbounds "touch" (as opposed to the NFHS inbounds "control")?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was actually more concerned about the NCAA ten second rule language than I was about the NCAA shot clock language. Does the NCAA ten second rule start on the inbounds "touch" (as opposed to the NFHS inbounds "control")?

Yes. It starts on a touch after a throw-in and on control after a jump ball, a rebound, a steal.

The rules are available on-line. For free. just d/l the pdf.