2022-23 NFHS Shot Clock Guidelines State Association Adoption ...

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just spotted this on the NFHS basketball website, it may have been there since August 4, 2022.

2022-23 NFHS Shot Clock Guidelines State Association Adoption

Use the shot clock to administer the 10-second backcourt count (9-8). The 10-second count shall begin when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court, in the backcourt on a throw-in or on player control on a rebound or jump ball.

The NFHS still hasn’t reconciled the shot clock guideline with the actual 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.

It’s one thing for the NFHS to leave the reconciliation up to individual states, but to just ignore the disconnect and not even broach it is very disappointing.

NCAA rules (men's and women's) interpret team control in this situation as beginning with the throw-in, so a touch inbounds by either team does not change team control. The legal touch inbounds is important because it starts the game (if previously stopped) and shot clocks.

I agree, but then NFHS editing is not the best. They constantly screw up on rules tests by making questions with no correct answer, or else the wrong answer marked as correct, and the rulebooks often feature editorial errors. This is not surprising.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I agree, but then NFHS editing is not the best. They constantly screw up on rules tests by making questions with no correct answer, or else the wrong answer marked as correct, and the rulebooks often feature editorial errors. This is not surprising.

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.

[ilyazhito]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... rules changes where often there is no consideration to other rules that affect the change ... "It takes the NF 3 years to get a rule right." ... they would forget the ramifications of a change without seemingly catching a simple change that influenced other languages in the rules ...

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see this as an impact that you are talking about.

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.

[ilyazhito]

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.