LOL!!

MTD, Sr.

Some people use the last "S" as "silly."

Peace

Silly Billy ...
 

Guilty as charged.

I generally don't find that to be the case. More often, I find that officials that think there is no correct answer don't understand the underlying rules.

I have seen people get points back on rules tests because questions were badly written. The explanation was usually that the wrong answer was marked as "correct" on the test, but there was at least one occasion on a football test where a question had no correct answer.

When we took the NF tests, there were constant mistakes or thrown out questions every year. Usually, they used wording that did not mesh with the rule or it was confusing. Even now one of my states gives out the NF test and there are 2 or three questions thrown out because of the way they worded the question.

And do not get me started on rules changes where often there is no consideration to other rules that affect the change. We had a football rules interpreter that would say famously, "It takes the NF 3 years to get a rule right." He was often right because they would forget the ramifications of a change without seemingly catching a simple change that influenced other languages in the rules. Just like when they went to team control fouls and did not clear up the language for how that influenced backcourt in a better way. And it was the case in other sports like the Horsecollar rule and I remember in baseball the Force Play Slide Rule took a few years to get "right."

Peace

Slip Through ...
 

Bingo.

I've "officially" suggested a few rule changes to the NFHS. The NFHS always wants to know the impact of the change on other rules, as well as casebook plays, but often these "impacts" slip through the process.

I do not see this as an impact that you are talking about. This is rather minor if you ask me. If you are not using a shot clock, nothing changes. If you use a shot clock, there are likely to be procedures to handle those. I do not see the big deal. I really do not.

Other situation, sure.

Peace

They're Wat'cha Call Rules Experts ...
 

I was agreeing with JRutledge (who appears to be agreeing with ilyazhito) about NFHS rules (and more specifically rule changes) in general (not specifically about shot clocks), also agreeing with JRutledge's football rules interpreter who said, "It takes the NF 3 years to get a rule right."

Yeah, I know that the NFHS deals with a lot of different sports (and other activities) and a lot of different rules, rule changes, and interpretations (not easy tasks to align everything), but that's their main job (isn't it), and I think that they could do just a little better than sometimes taking years to iron out all the bugs in a rule change, or publishing exams that sometimes have incorrect, or nonsensical, answers (we occasionally have similar problems with IAABO exams, but it's rare).

They're not reinventing the wheel, just making a few improvements every year.

Not expecting perfect, just a little better.

Knowing that something was going to be presented to tens of thousands of officials, coaches, players, athletic directors, etc., the NFHS should be damn sure that editors check, double check, and triple check before publishing something.

Back when I was teaching, I made sure that my exams had fair and easy to understand questions and non-ambiguous and correct answers.

And if I made a rare mistake, I fixed it for the next year.

I expected my lessons, lectures, demonstrations, handouts, labs, exams, quizzes, etc. to be as near perfect as possible, even in regard to spelling and grammar.

During my student teaching, I carelessly spelled oxygen as "oxagen" (I had used the short-hand O2 in my lesson plan notes, not spelling it out) as I was diagramming the Oxygen Carbon Dioxide Cycle on the blackboard.

After the lesson, my master teacher pointed the error out to me.

I was extremely embarrassed, and vowed to myself that something like that would never ever happen again in my teaching career.

This happened forty-eight years ago, yet I remember it vividly as if it happened yesterday.

Thank you Mr. Spargo.

I'll wait for the 2022-23 MPSSAA clinic to see how the NFHS shot clock guidelines will affect MD operations. DC already has a non-visible backcourt count based on the shot clock. Both states use a 30-second shot clock, as opposed to the NFHS standard 35-second shot clock.

For those in IL:

5. The Board approved a recommendation to approve the experimental use of the Shot Clock in IHSA Girls & Boys Basketball for regular-season tournaments and shootouts during the 2022-23 school year. All tournaments seeking to use the shot clock for regular-season tournaments and shootouts must apply for approval from the IHSA. Information regarding the approval process will be distributed to member schools in mid-September.
IHSA Executive Director Craig Anderson:
“The IHSA’s survey of administrators and coaches last year made it very clear that our membership wasn’t ready to implement the shot clock in basketball at this juncture. Our priority now shifts to gathering feedback and data on the impact that the shot clock creates on game play, game management, and school finances. We look forward to working with our schools to pilot usage of the shot clock in some tournaments and shootouts this winter. We will release information to our schools on how to apply to use the shot clock in their tournament or shootout in mid-September.”

I am going to assume they are going to follow the guidelines given by the National Federation on the website that have been announced to adjudicate these rules. They often do not totally reinvent the wheel when it comes to things like this. So we will probably use the shot clock as the ten-second count guideline similar to college rules. That is just an educated guess. But we will see soon.

Peace