Double Edged Sword ...

[BillyMac]

We had our mandatory new rules local meeting last night.

Our local (not state) interpreter announced that when Connecticut goes to the shot clock next year that we will still (contrary to NFHS shot clock guidelines) always be using a visible 10 second hand count.

I’m not sure that I was pleased to hear that. It’s a double edged sword.

On one hand it will force us to have a more accurate visible count because everybody in the gym will be watching for the shot clock to wind down to twenty-five seconds.

On the other hand, it will allow officials to continue to use the NFHS ten second rule as written (starting on possession) versus using the NFHS shot clock rule (starting on touch). This will be especially relevant on muffed catches of the inbounded ball, with the ball “pinballing” on the floor for a second, or two, before a possession.

Which is best, using the shot clock for ten second violations (starting on touch), or always using a visible ten second count (starting on possession)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

On the other hand, it will allow officials to continue to use the NFHS ten second rule as written (starting on possession) versus using the NFHS shot clock rule (starting on touch).

Not necessarily. You (meaning CT) could decide to start the count on first touch.

And, by the time next year rolls around CT could change it's stance on this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not necessarily. You (meaning CT) could decide to start the count on first touch. And, by the time next year rolls around CT could change it's stance on this.

Yeah, best to be patient and wait, nothing to lose sleep over.

We were also told that any subvarsity officials in the audience that were thinking that they don't have to worry about shot clock rules next year (only mandatory for varsity games in Connecticut) better think twice. Shot clocks will be optional in freshman and junior varsity games based on decisions of the involved coaches.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yeah, best to be patient and wait, nothing to lose sleep over.
....

Nothing we discuss here is ever serious enough to lose sleep over or fret about the "what-ifs".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Nothing we discuss here is ever serious enough to lose sleep over or fret about the "what-ifs".

While I didn't lose any sleep, my recent "Delay Throwin Or Free Throw" thread was sparked by a dream that I had the night before. In the dream I was officiating and both teams kept delaying, forcing me to use the resumption-of-play procedure over and over again. The dream was certainly sparked by a coach's question about delays after a presentation that I made of my "Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules" to a group of Christian school basketball league coaches.

[The_Rookie]

We have used the shot clock for almost 20 years hear in California. I still use the visible 10 second count because some of the young folks doing the shot clock at the table are not very good and have frequent mistakes.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We had our mandatory new rules local meeting last night.

Our local (not state) interpreter announced that when Connecticut goes to the shot clock next year that we will still (contrary to NFHS shot clock guidelines) always be using a visible 10 second hand count.

I’m not sure that I was pleased to hear that. It’s a double edged sword.

On one hand it will force us to have a more accurate visible count because everybody in the gym will be watching for the shot clock to wind down to twenty-five seconds.

On the other hand, it will allow officials to continue to use the NFHS ten second rule as written (starting on possession) versus using the NFHS shot clock rule (starting on touch). This will be especially relevant on muffed catches of the inbounded ball, with the ball “pinballing” on the floor for a second, or two, before a possession.

Which is best, using the shot clock for ten second violations (starting on touch), or always using a visible ten second count (starting on possession)?

MD used to do what your local interpreter said for boys games. Now, we follow the NFHS shot clock rules with a 30-second shot clock.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... when Connecticut goes to the shot clock next year that we will still (contrary to NFHS shot clock guidelines) always be using a visible 10 second hand count ... it will force us to have a more accurate visible count because everybody in the gym will be watching for the shot clock to wind down to twenty-five seconds.

Of course for the past century, fans could have been using the game clock to check the accuracy of an official's visible ten second count. The shot clock just makes it a easier for math-impaired fans.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course for the past century, fans could have been using the game clock to check the accuracy of an official's visible ten second count. The shot clock just makes it a easier for math-impaired fans.

Thirty-five years ago I had a coach challenge me on a ten second violation. It was after a made free throw and he claimed that only seven seconds passed based on the game clock. I figured that the game clock maybe starting late combined with maybe a slightly fast count by me could account for three seconds difference, so I dismissed his complaint, which led to him being charged with a technical foul.

Discussed the situation with my partner on the ride home after the game. We concluded that, instead of two separate counts, I "added" my five second throwin count to my ten second backcourt count.

I had to apologize the the coach the next time I saw him.

This is why IAABO mechanics (and probably other mechanics) have us switch hands between different counts.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thirty-five years ago I had a coach challenge me on a ten second violation. It was after a made free throw and he claimed that only seven seconds passed based on the game clock. I figured that the game clock maybe starting late combined with maybe a slightly fast count by me could account for three seconds difference, so I dismissed his complaint...

If you knew you had a "slightly fast count", why would you dismiss his complaint?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If you knew you had a "slightly fast count", why would you dismiss his complaint?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... combined ...

Because I was 100% sure that my visible count wasn't a full three seconds too fast. One full second over ten visible counts? Sure. Two seconds? Maybe. Three seconds? No way.

Also, as I time my count several times each season, I tend to be a slightly slow counter, never a fast counter.

Figured (incorrectly) that the timekeeper started the game clock late.

I was wrong, my error was for a completely different reason having nothing to do with a fast count or a slow starting game clock that I only realized well after the game.

[FlasherZ]

From my observations over the years, I think about 5% of officials have a "fast" count (meaning at least 2 seconds shorter), and about 35% of officials have a "slow" count (meaning at least 2 seconds longer), and the rest are right in the middle.

We have one local official with a reputation for quick-counting in the backcourt (to the tune of about 6-7 seconds instead of 10), and nearly every game I've observed the coaches will remind him throughout the game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course for the past century, fans could have been using the game clock to check the accuracy of an official's visible ten second count. The shot clock just makes it a easier for math-impaired fans.

When I first started officiating forty-plus years ago one of our rural high schools still had one of these on the wall, it wasn't used, it was only there for historical display purposes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

When I first started officiating forty-plus years ago one of our rural high schools still had one of these on the wall, it wasn't used, it was only there for historical display purposes.

When I played JrHS basketball (1963-64 and 1964-65) our JrHS was originally our ES, JrHS and HS when it was built in the pre-WPA days before The Great Depression. The gym had a a stage on one side and a balcony on the other side that was so low that if one shot from the corner one risked getting block by the balcony. The court length was less that 84 feet so it had the 40ft lines maked from each End Line and since there considerable less that 3 feet outside all of the Boundary Lines on all 4 sides, a 3ft dashed line was marked all around the court to mark the Boundary Lines during Throw-ins. And while the Free Throw lane was 12 feet wide it still had the key-hole Free Throw lane marked on it with the H and V marked on the first Lane Spaces from the very "Ancient Days" of basketball.

And yes, the court had a game clock, like in Billy's picture, that was used for our games. And the gym was still used ocassionaly for JrHS games when I started officiating in 1971-72 and I officiated a few games on the court.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

From my observations over the years, I think about 5% of officials have a "fast" count (meaning at least 2 seconds shorter), and about 35% of officials have a "slow" count (meaning at least 2 seconds longer), and the rest are right in the middle.

We have one local official with a reputation for quick-counting in the backcourt (to the tune of about 6-7 seconds instead of 10), and nearly every game I've observed the coaches will remind him throughout the game.

In my experience, about 90% are slow, most 20-30% slow but some so slow that they're on a pace to actually get close to 20 seconds. I've rarely seen anyone too fast.