That would be an interesting idea, however shouldn't half-court shots be made 4 points? Especially since not everyone can make these shots?

Use NCAA Timing rules (2 halves). For Boys', use the new NCAA-M 3-pt. line.

Iowa
 

I do not remember the Girls' Union ever attempting to implement the shot clock. I can only imagine the melees this would cause with the table crews and officials in the state. The schools would also hide behind the initial cost of the setup if this was ever brought up for discussion.

The Girls' Union is allowing the teams to play two sixteen minute halves in non-conference games in both coaches agree. Each conference can adopt this change, if every school agrees. I have heard of a few schools experimenting with this change but I have not been involved in any high school game playing two halves. I would vote for the change to eliminate the quarter break during each half.

The Girls' Union did require a coin toss during my short officiating career. I worked a junior high travel-ball tournament during that time with a team from Minneapolis playing a team from Kansas City. We were using NFHS rules with the Iowa adaptations. At the captain's meeting I asked the visiting team (on the scoreboard) to call the coin toss. She looked at me and asked "are you f@cking kidding me?" My first response was, "I wish I was."

If I heard a girl in junior high respond that way during a captains meeting, I would be too stunned to speak.

How do you not call this T?
I worked plenty of those tourneys when I was there, and that would have been a quick one.

"Never mind the coin toss."
Indirect to the coach, two shots, ball. Much easier that way.

I thought that we granted an exception when the person is correct. ;)

Careful: you'll talk BillyMac out of the coin toss.

Jerome Bettis Rule?
 

If the girl changed her mind or the referee "mis-heard" her call - correctable error? ;)

1. Allow referees to correct "wrong team" throw in errors (i.e. Team A awarded the ball for a throw in following a time out when Team B should have been awarded the ball) UNTIL a change of possession. While on the topic of correctable errors, modify the heck out of the current rule. If a team SCORES when an FT should have been awarded, the basket ENDS the time of correcting the error. If FTs are shot at the WRONG BASKET, that is NOT CORRECTABLE (both baskets should be 10' high, both FT lines should be at 15' and wind should not be a factor). If the team that got fouled is not on the ball enough to know that a foul is an FT shooting situation (or the defensive team is not aware in the case of fouling a poor FTer), that is not correctable, either.

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

3. Do not charge a technical foul if a team only returns four players to the court following a time out. If a team wants to play short, let them. Similarly, if a team wishes to play 4v4 when the opponent only has 4 eligible players, let them. Why not allow a team to commit a "sporting act"? Forcing such teams to play with 5 if they have 5 is silly.

4. Change delaying coming back onto the court into a violation to match leaving the court and coming back onto the court.

5. Allow players to enter the lane on release on FTs. I have NEVER understood why there is a differentiation on certain 15 foot shots (FTs) force everyone to stand still until the ball hits, while other 15 foot shots, rebounders can kill each other (within the displacement rules of the game)BEFORE the release.

6. Modify the backcourt violation rules to restore the purpose of the division line (i.e. to prevent a team from delaying the game by using the entire 84/94 foot court instead of just half of it). First of all, eliminate the last-touch-first-touch violation by stating that PLAYER CONTROL must be established in the front court after a ball is tipped by the defense. Secondly, eliminate the throw-in exceptions to the backcourt violation rules. Until a player has BOTH FEET AND THE BALL IN THE FRONT COURT, the player shall be considered to be in the backcourt -- regardless whether the ball is tipped/not tipped on the inbounds pass. As a result, a player who jumps from the frontcourt to the backcourt to catch the ball would NOT be called for an "over and back" violation when, in fact, the BALL has never PASSED the division line.

7. Eliminate the "No long switch" mechanic in three man -- it actually slows the game down. It must have been created by a plump referee not desiring to run.

8. I rather like Nevada's idea on concentric circles for 1s, 2s and 3s. Perhaps a semicircle at 6 feet and another at the International distance. The short to midrange jump shot is almost gone from the game. While backdoor cut lay-ups are a thing of beauty, stopping at the six foot mark for a shot off the glass would be great, too. For FTs three defenders would be allowed inside the 6' arc for rebounding and the shooting team would be allowed two rebounders between the semicircles (FT shooter would be the third rebounder). The other four players would be outside the 3 point arc. Players can step in on release.

9. I like MTD's rule regarding 3 FTs at foul 13 and beyond, except NO bonus free throws until the 8th foul, 2 shots at the 10th foul and 3 shots at the 12th foul.

10. I like JRut's suggestion on the coaching box with a slight modification. Coaches would be able to COACH anywhere from 10' from the division line to the baseline, but there would be a "complaint box" that is 14' wide. If the coach is outside the "complaint box" and argues, automatic "T", but he can COACH anywhere he would like.

11. Continue to compile ALL relevant situations and case plays that are still in effect EACH YEAR in a single document (Case Book). ONLY delete such plays from the case book when a rule change makes them no longer valid. HIGHLIGHT all NEW CASEPLAYS in the Case Book as is done with the Rules Book.

12. Make BillyMac's "Most Misunderstood Rules" mandatory reading for ALL NFHS Head and Assistant Coaches (with an online test following).

13. Mandate fitness tests for referees at each level (BOYS MS, FR, JV, V and GIRLS MS, FR, JV and V -- yes, there is a BIG difference in requirements).

14. Play 2 halves, but give the coaches one extra time out each. Close games would last as long, but most other games would be shortened by a couple minutes.

15. ALL rules (such as the OHSAA 6th quarter in a day technical) MUST be in the NFHS Rules Book OR a NFHS Rules Addendum Book that would have ALL States exceptions listed in it by State.

Me No Likey.....
 

While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.

My $.02.

Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.

Don't like this at all. As long as officials consistently enforce the six foot guarding rule we have no need for a shot clock. Very good defense can be played at 3-6 feet without requiring over playing.

I don't see a lot of benefit from this, and it requires some level of judgement. You'd still have a jumping from frontcourt to backcourt violation if the ball is tipped in the frontcourt, then caught in the air by a player who left his frontcourt and landed in the backcourt. Much ado about nothing, IMO.

This, IMO, would be a nightmare to officiate. A lot of shots are taken at around six feet with a lot of players in the vicinity when it happens. It's one more line to watch. And rewarding teams for getting good looks at the basket from five feet should be rewarded the same as seven.

Penalize a coach when he deserves to be penalized. Arbitrary lines shouldn't rule a coach's conduct.

I like these two suggestions. I believe waiting for the ball to hit rather than entering on the release creates incentive to "crash" hard rather than having time to work for position.

Halves work for me, and the extra TO makes up for a loss in coaching time. Let coaches decide when they need the break, and get rid of two last-second shot/hold the ball opportunities per game.

A teenage girl changing her mind is not a correctable error situation, it's just standard operating procedure. ;)

True Dat!
 

Juulie may not be happy with this one........

The whole shooting at the wrong basket thing never made sense to me either. If the kid makes the free throw, count it. If he misses, don't give him another try.Three feet is pretty close quarters. I'm afraid grunewar is right on this one. Forcing the defense to come in closer is not desirable.

If we ever do adopt a shot clock, I'd prefer to simply do away with the closely guarded count entirely. At the very least strip it down to the current NCAA-W rule.Agreed. If you can't get all your players back on the court after a TO, they wait at the table for the next opportunity to sub. However, still a T if they come running onto the court after the ball is in play.Agreed. Hope springs eternal on this, the NFHS has recently shown a willingness to acknowledge that not every undesirable behavior is worthy of the nuclear option.Why not allow them into the lane once the ball is at the shooter's disposal? I'm not being sarcastic, if the debate is over what magical moment is the right one, why not set it to be at a time that makes officiating free throws easier?I rather like this idea. Empirical evidence (i.e., the sheer number of threads started on this very topic) clearly indicates this is the most difficult rule to understand and apply correctly. As currently written it's got a big "gotcha" factor to it in situations that have nothing to do with the original intent of the rule.It is an interesting idea. But it would then be some other game and not basketball.Free throws take too long as it is. But the idea of an escalating penalty for team fouls has merit. How about after 12 we award one point and continue to shoot only two?Two thoughts. I prefer the college rule. The problem is rarely that the coach is too far towards the baseline, it's that the coach is too far towards midcourt. Taking away the box for a T is both juvenile and sometimes creates a more difficult situation because now we have to police it. The "complaint box" idea is just silly.Agreed. In this age of online access, they don't need to print and distribute the entire volume either. They could continue to publish the existing book, which would serve as the Reader's Digest version of the "big book". The big book would be available online.Lots of states already require coaches to take a rules test. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it's common for coaches to share the answers and never actually "take" the test. My preference would be a proctored exam. It's not like schools don't have the facilities in place to do this.This merits a discussion all its own.The longer I do this, the more I favor just playing halves.Too much bother. Too un-American ;)

I think maybe we [and I include myself] should employ resumption of play procedures more often. Would take too many lost possessions or easy baskets for opponents to have coaches get there teams on the floor in a timely manner after a timeout has run its course.

[QUOTE=grunewar;643690]While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.


Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

First of all, we would not be "forcing" the defenders anywhere. At the same time, for anyone who has played basketball, SIX FEET hardly causes an offensive player to sweat!!! The six foot rule also causes much inconsistency since some officials flat out will NOT start a count until a defender is 3 to 4 feet. I would be fine with 4 feet. But, SIX FEET is not going to be consistently called as it is just too far away.

This is not about forcing a defender's position, but it should be about TRULY PLAYING DEFENSE. If you are six feet away, you are not preventing an entry pass, a skip pass or a shot. About the only thing you may be able to prevent is a drive. REMEMBER: closely guarded applies only to the ball, therefore this has no effect on the way helpside or denial defense is taught. As for the length of the game, closely guarded positioning has no bearing in my mind.

As for fitness, I should add that a separate level should exist for FR/JV 2-person and 3-person. In Central Ohio most HS games are 3-man regardless of level. Girls are usually 2-person as are city league and catholic league. Most of the rest are all 3-person.