NCAA Rules that NFHS or State Associations should try out?
 

After going through this season with the Boys' Shot Clock, I got to thinking what NCAA rules should the NFHS or the State Associations use/try out?

One of the things I am on the fence about is the final minute stoppage of clock after made basket, what's everyone's thoughts on this?

I'd be in favor of stopping the clock in the final minute of play. After made baskets, it would stop the new defense from trying illegal tactics to try and stop the clock.

I'd like if NFHS went ahead and extended the coach's box like NCAA's. In Texas we give the coach's a six-foot box and it's never really enforced unless a coach is giving an official a hard time (at least in these parts).

How about if Texas just adopt the NCAA box since that's how y'all are enforcing it. I understand the coaches may not allow you to enforce it beyond that, but it's enforced here within a step or two.
Same goes for illegal tactics to stop the clock. What are you seeing? I've only seen one attempt to use a DOG to stop the clock, and my partner rightly ignored it (under 5 seconds remaining).

The 14-foot box is more reasonable, but I'd be happy giving HS coaches the full 28 feet. Doesn't matter to me a bit.

With the last minute of play stoppage, we'd spend a lot of time fixing the clock, I fear.

Curious, how big is the coaching box in your area?

As far as the illegal tactics to stop the clock, it's not a big issue here really. Stopping the clock would just negate all of it. It's not really a big deal to me and as Rich said, we might have to correct the clock a bit under a minute especially at the lower levels. Heck, we see it have to be corrected still at the college level from time to time.

Two thirds of my games this season were the JV or freshman variety with less than respectable volunteers working the table/clock. Coaches would be watching that clock like a hawk if it was close and they were down to make sure they got every tenth of a second they could, but I like the rule.

14 ft

I could see states adapting the timing rules for varsity only, but I could never see the NFHS having such a rule. They write the rules for all levels, as they probably should.

I would love to see a couple of mechanic changes. 1) calling official goes opposite 2) report fouls while walking

14

I'd like to see NFHS adopt these:
stop clock after made FG under 1:00 of 4th qtr.
all players to enter lane on release of FT shot (vs wait to hit rim)
Technical fouls are 2 shots and resume at POI (maintain 2 shots & ball for flagrant/dead-ball contact T's however)

i'll wait a couple of years and then hope that NFHS uses a "restricted area" under the basket for block/charge plays - AND that they eliminate the airborne shooter rule in conjunction.....

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on the rest, but I absolutely hate the restricted area rule. If there's a defender in the area, take a two foot jump shot for crying out loud.

Why would you want to reduce the penalty for a technical foul at the high school level?

Technical fouls are supposed to be a deterrent against unsporting conduct, especially at the high school level. That's why a loss-of-ball was included in the penalty for a "T". And it seems that it's almost an annual occurrence to have an NFHS POE issued about having incidents of unsporting conduct reduced. And yet you're proposing a rule that has a chance of promoting or increasing those incidents by reducing the penalties for them? That doesn't make sense to me, Jeff.

Any coach...or player.... with half a brain is just gonna wait until his team has the ball before he goes off on us.

That's a misunderstood NBA rule. The restricted area only applies to "secondary defenders," and that's a concept we don't have to deal with in amateur hoops. With all we have to watch, why add whether a defender was primary or secondary?

Besides, a defender should able to defend any spot on the floor where has has LGP. If you can't obtain LGP on an airborne shooter, then the restricted area isn't necessary.

I agree with stopping the clock under a minute in the 4th. I'd also like to see players in the lane allowed to enter on the release. As far a technical fouls, I don't really care either way.

As far as the restricted area goes, I wouldn't be surprised if we see it sometime in the future. The NBA has had it for a while, NCAA added it this year (I think it'll be expanded and properly marked in the future), FIBA is going to it soon (insert FIBA joke here :p)...I'd have no problem if it were implemented at the high school level, but I'd much rather deal with implementing a shot clock first.

Specifically it deals with secondary defenders attempting to take a charge. The restricted area doesn't apply when a defender alights to block a shot, an offensive player makes an overt move (leads with foot, wipe outs, etc.), or a play originates in the lower defensive box. As far as primary vs. secondary, the on-ball defender is the primary defender, and everyone else is secondary unless I'm misunderstanding it. It wouldn't really add anything to the process since I figure most of us can do that without thinking. :p

The reason they reduced the penalty at the college level is so officials would be more inclined to actually make the call. I've heard way too many officials say they won't call a T because they feel the punishment is too harsh, and it turns into letting way too much go. Yea, I know those officials need to grow a couple/take care of bidness/etc. But there have been instances where the NFHS has reduced penalties for the very reason of wanting the call to be made more often, and it takes away some of those officials' excuses.

I'm not against changing a T to POI. One thing I might do differently, however, is keeping the penalty for a flagrant T (one T combined with an ejection) the same where there is still a loss of possession.

You're assuming there are such animals?... :D

+1

That's the basic gist. I see three flaws with a restrictive area:

*More unnecessary rulebook venacular. Rule 4 of NFHS would have to add the definition of a "secondary defender," plus Rule 10 would to make clear what charging fouls cannot exist in the area. I'm also curious how you define the primary defender when a forward is double-teamed (or even triple).
*"Who was his man?" Once you've established the the defender had LGP at the point of contact, you have to ask yourself if he was guarding that person the whole time. I doubt we're going to catch that all the time. Why should we care who was guarding whom, anyway? The matchups are not our concern.
*The Big One: The existing rules cover the need. All defenders are entitled to their spot on the floor. If you're looking for LGP, and you're looking for when a shooter becomes airborne, you have all you need to make an accurate ruling.

Anytime a rule change is considered, it's best to ask what someone is trying to accomplish with it. I still don't see what a restrictive area will do that's already covered by the rules.

Rules like restricted area, clock stoppage under a minute, etc., are not for team or game betterment, but to showcase individual talent and for the fans. NFHS is the last true bastion of amateur basketball (NCAA has accepted its role as farm teams for the NBA). For 75% or so of the players there is no realistic next level. Why should we ruin a perfectly good game for the majority to cater to a relatively small minority and fans?

As far as rules changes (not NCAA or anywhere else that I know of), the one I would like to see brought in would be that any baseline throw-in away from your basket you can run the line. All other throw-ins (side; baseline under your basket) would remain spot throws. Certainly save on any argumentation on "was it a spot or a run?"

When is there *ever* an argument on this?

Good question.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

I think that a greater reason for the reluctance of some officials(some-the big dawgs are exempt) might be a concern about negative feedback from their conference officiating coordinators. John Adams may be on the right track in trying to get officials to take some of the yapping out of the college game, but that doesn't mean that the various coordinators are going to follow his aims/directives during the regular season. Until he has some actual real power in that area, it is all still pretty much a big ado about nuthin'. All thunder and no storm. The conference officiating coordinators have to take direction from their respective employers, and if their respective employers want **"communication"(:)) emphasized over confrontation, you just won't see the T's called.

Or to put it in an easier-to-understand way for you, do you really think that that Whiny Dook Dickhead doesn't have any stroke?

Couple that with the fact that D1 college and high school ball are two completely different worlds, with different rules, objectives, standards, etc., I think that you just can't try to apply the same reasoning to enacting certain rules at the different levels.

Jmo.


** "Communication" means that the coach yells and the official listens.

Agree. I had a competitive game this past season where a 3-point basket was made with 7 seconds remaining to close the game to a 1 point deficit, but since they had no timeouts left they couldn't stop the clock and the other team smartly took their time to get to the ball. Even when I started counting when the player stood next to the ball, they didn't need to throw the ball in to win because there was only 4 seconds left. At the varsity level, I have enough confidence in most table crews to stop the clock properly if given some reminders at the beginning of the season.

As for the Texas coaching box, I too think enforcement would improve by either adopting the NFHS 14-foot box or the NCAA 28-foot box. It just seems we've adopted the "as long as they're coaching, they're okay" philosophy as to enforcing the coaching box, partly because of the size of the Texas exception. (What happened to everything's bigger in Texas? :cool: )

Well, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. I think...

While I don't disagree there are many things that differ, they are many dynamics that are very similar between D-1 and high school. Both the NCAA and NFHS make the rules, but it is still the local assignors, hired by the schools and conferences, that affect how those rules are actually enforced. I have a D-3 and juco women's assignor, for example, that wants us to take care of bidness. He has even gone so far as to send out weekly updates as to the number of unsporting T's have been given by his staff, and gladly supports the officials in doing so. As I recall the last count, his staff had handed out 70 T's for the season in his 3 leagues, and the season was not quite over. Compare that to just over 100 for D-1 women's nationwide. However, he is also getting heat from the coaches for directing a staff that doesn't communicate well (as in your definition). So what happens? The staff probably has to become a little more lenient, because that's what the coaches and schools want because they hire the assignor, and thus the officials. The NCAA and NFHS both know this, and since they do not have direct control over how rules are enforced, they do have control over the rules themselves. If they want more T's called, they cannot force supervisors to tell their officials to call more, but they can change the rules to make it easier to call them, and thus, accomplish the same goal. It was the same theory on changing the penalty on excessive swinging of the elbows from a T to a violation - no one wanted to make the call until they changed the rule; then officials actually started making it.

You're right in that there would have to be an added definition in Rule 4 and Rule 10 would have to be modified, but I don't think it would be as drastic a change as you make it sound out to be. The NCAA rule book doesn't read drastically different even with the new definitions this year.

Now who would be the primary defender on a double team, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe it'd be the defender who's LGP was in the path of the player? Perhaps those who use NCAA rules more often could answer that question. Really though, the plays where this issue come to mind are dribble drives or fast breaks where it's easy to determine primary vs. secondary.

I wouldn't expect NFHS to implement any of these rules in the near future. I think if/when NCAA keeps/extends the restricted area, there will be more pressure to do so at the NF level, but that would be down the road. Either way I'm fine with the way the rule is now, but I wouldn't care a bit if it changed.

Everything IS bigger in Texas haha...I'm actually surprised that the 6-foot box has been kept at that (now admittely I haven't been doing this for too long so I don't know what it was before). I agree that having such a small area has made that philosphy a lot more prevelant for better or worse. A coach could literally take two steps and could be at the edge or outside the box! 14/28 feet would make coaching box violations enforced a lot more often.

Both are. The number of primary defenders isn't limited to one. Anyone actively guarding a player is primary defender. A secondary defender is not directly guarding the opponent but the play comes to them (or they set up in a spot to have the play come to them if the primary defender(s) get beat.

Only when there is a violation, and then you get ripped a new one by your assignor because your point to the floor didn't show up on video as crisp as he thought it should, or the thrower was looking away when grabbing the ball from you, or whatever.

Plus you shouldn't have to answer that annoying question everyone should know the answer to--"can I run?"--since the answer is obvious: baseline away yes; everywhere else no.

Not a hill I'm ready to die on, however.

Below is list of rule modifications for 2010 coming in at FIBA level 1 (world championship level). As of 2012 they will be at all FIBA levels this will include high school, middle school and down age class for all ages. What do you think?

Art. 2.2.3 Free-throw lines and restricted areas

The restricted areas shall be the floor rectangle areas marked on the playing court.

The restricted (three-second) area shall be a rectangle (not anymore a trapezoid) as per Diagram 1 below.

Art. 2.2.4 Three-point field goal area

The distance of the three-point line shall be 6,75 m (and not 6,25 m as present).

Art. 2.2.6 Throw-in side lines

The two (2) small lines shall be marked outside the court, on the opposite side of the scorer’s table and the team bench areas, with the outer edge at the distance of 8,325 m from the inside edge of the end lines; in other words, level to the top of the three-point line.

During the last two (2) minutes of the game and of the extra period, following the time-out granted to the team that has been entitled to the possession of the ball from its backcourt, the subsequent throw-in will be taken on the opposite side of the scorer’s table from the “throw-in side line” and not as presently from the centre line extended.

Art. 2.2.7 No-charge semicircles

The no-charge semicircles shall be marked on the playing court, under the baskets. The distance of the inner edge of the semicircles shall be 1,25 m from the centre of the basket (on the floor).

A charging (offensive) foul should never be called if the contact by the offensive player is with the defensive player standing within the no-charge semicircle.

Art. 29 Twenty-four seconds

If the throw-in is to be administered in the backcourt, if required by the respective rules, the 24 second device shall be reset to 24 seconds.

If the throw-in is to be administered in the frontcourt, if required by the respective rules, the 24-second device shall be reset as follows:

- If 14 seconds or more are displayed on the 24-second device at the time the game was stopped, the 24-second device shall not be reset and shall remain the same.

- If 13 seconds or less are displayed on the 24-second device at the time the game was stopped, the 24-second device shall be reset to 14 seconds.

For a clearer visualization of the first four changes above, please refer to the Diagram 1.

Are you talking about this one DIAGRAM :: Diagram #1: Comparison of Notation from Figure #2 and Figure #3?

Or this one http://www.outdoorphotogear.com/blog..._Diagram_1.gif?

Maybe he meant "Diaphragm 1". Hope not. :p

clarification of asking the question
 

My reasoning for asking about what rules from NCAA that the NFHS &/or State Associations should adopt is cause of the fact that I had heard after Washington State added the Boys' Shot Clock, it was to better prepare the players to college play. By adopting the NCAA rules for high school play, the players would not be at a disadvantage when it came to playing at the college level, & you'd see more Freshmen playing college level than you do now.

Concerning the questions about the stoppage of clock in final minute after made basket & having to add time, not all scoreboard controls have the capability to do the tenths of a second entry (the operator has to input the next second higher & be precise on when to stop the time).

How many of the rules/regulations that the NCAA uses do the NBA, WNBA, & FIBA use?

As I see it the rules should be universal throughout all levels.

I Can't Reach The Basket, May I Please Take A Step Forward ???
 

I agree. Second graders should not be allowed to do any pregame dunkng. All officials should strictly enforce this rule. I don't care if they cry when you "T" 'em up.

And it would be OK for a second-grade player to call you a mofo, just like the NBE players.

LMAO How many 2nd graders can actually dunk?

Another reason why I am asking is cause of the fact that (OT as it's another sport) bowling here in the US is under one overall governing body for all levels. So everyone is under the same rules/guidelines no matter the experience level when it comes to league play/tournaments.

I can see there being rules differences for street ball or unofficiated "wreck" ball, but for officiated play everyone should be playing under the same rules.

I realize this may seem unfair to the grade school aged youth, however they have to learn somehow.

just like the NBE Players that get fined for such actions, what would the fine be like if a 2nd grader did such a thing?? No recess for a week, no allowance for a month??

Let the punishment fir the crime LMAO.

On a serious note, by having everyone playing under the same rules/guidelines/regulations, more fair play would be happening in every game as everyone would have an equal chance to win or lose, no matter the level.

Of course, there would be the disparities because of different people having different skill/experience levels, as is always the norm.

I would be an advocate for having the clock stop under a minute. Seems counter intuitive but it would help speed up the last minute of some games under certain scenarios where it would preclude the need to take a TO or worse TOs plural for solely getting the clock stopped. The rest would take about the same. I cant see where it would take longer that would be of any great consequence.

Please explain as it pertains to the bolded part?

While i am all in favor of a unified rules set, you arguments for doing so have no merit. There will be the same number of spots open on college teams each year...changing to a shot clock doesn't make teams have more openings. Perhpas you were refering to having more of the existing freshman playing more time...not help there either as the sophomores/juniors/seniors will still be more experienced and shot clock familiarity is certainly not the biggest factor in playing time.

How many possessions, in an average HS game, do you really see lasting more than 35 seconds w/o a shot? Very few. I've worked many games that would have never come close to a shot clock violation. The shot clock will only affect a small number of players/games anyway.

Cameron,

Here in Washington State, before the shot clock was adopted, there were several games (both regular season & post-season games) that would of had very different outcomes had the shot clock been in use. I've seen it happen when I was Boys' Basketball Manager as well as a bystander, when a team would just pass the ball around for a minute or more without even making a shot attempt just to tire out the defense or run out the clock cause of their lead.

Yes now on average, the offensive plays last maybe 20 seconds on average, however the shot clock has caused the game to be faster paced. Before the shot clock, the plays averaged about 30-35 seconds (except on fast breaks or poor defense).

Concerning freshmen playing on college squads, sure experience counts, however how can a person not get experience unless they are allowed to play under those rules from the very beginning.

How often are the best players not those with experience but with the drive & determination to learn to better both themselves & the team (to gain more experience)? Freshman, as well as sophmores have more to prove to both the team as a whole, & the coach. They are less experienced, but they are wanting to play for the team & the coach. Juniors & Seniors have basically proven themselves, so more often than not, they're playing to just better themselves, not the team.

the same reason the NFHS changing the penalty for excessive swinging of the elbows from a T to a simple violation.....nobody was calling this play because it was a T - a VERY harsh penalty. By making it a violation - with far less consequences (you simply lose the ball), officials are calling it.

do you know why the NFHS keeps listing unsporting behavior as a POE every year?.....it's because the problem doesn't get any better. the current rule in place now is not working.

you get a T - it's 2 shots for the other team and we get the game moving again....I would wager a lot of money that if this rule changed were implemented, we would see the # of T's called go up - and the quality of the game improve.

I'm not really in favour of rule changes or modifications that get more T's called.

We recently (last 2 years) had rules adapted so more things were considered unsportsmanlike behaviour = technical foul. Things like fouls before the ball has left the inbounders hand, any foul from behind or on the side of a player breaking away, hand in the face, yelling at the shooter, all these things are now T's.

In my experience its created a grey area that our local coaches struggle to deal with and as a result have a harder time dealing with us and managing their own kids. We are lucky to have very few jerk coaches in our area and for the most part (in the past) when kids would recieve a tech coaches in our area would deal with the unsportsmanlike behaviour (arguing, swearing, taunting) on the spot and bench the kid for a period of time or in some cases the remainder of the game on their own. They had very stringent team and school policies in regards to kids recieving T's. There was also never any debate over whether the T was deserved.

Now coaches are having to decide whether they feel the T was actually unsportsmanlike or just a unfortunate call based on the rules phrasing and their kids playing hard. Now you've got kids in the with T's you wouldn't normally have playing and in jeporady of getting a second inadvertantly and getting ejected. You have coaches debating that it wasn't unsportsmanlike angles, timing etc. Which obviously filters down to the crowd and players. Not too mention a T noe being a T in the eyes of kids, fans and coaches causing a lot more justification at least in people's minds.

Not that I have an issue with dealing with it personally, it just seems that making a T less meaningful could cause you problems as it has us. That being said we've only got technical fouls, intentional fouls, and personal fouls. So your varying levels of flagrant, technicals, etc may help deal with this issue.

This season I worked a game, the H team was unranked, V team ranked in top 10. H team played hard and was only down by three halfway through the 2nd quarter, when their best player picked up his 2nd foul and coach put him on the bench. Then, down by 3 with 4:13 on the clock their guard got the ball and stood just across the division line until there was 10 seconds left, then they ran an isolation for last shot.

And you know the best part the V team was complaining the whole time but not willing to come within 16 feet much less 6 feet to do anything about it.

IMO if officials could figure out how far 6 feet really is, we'd have no need for a shot clock.

(That was the easiest 4 minutes of basketball I've ever officiated)

You're spending way too much time worrying about what coaches, players and even the freaking fans think. Way too much! Who gives a damn what they think? We have completely different goals out there. They care who wins. We don't.

It's our job to ensure that the game is played in a safe, sporting manner. We react to the actions of others. And imo if you don't take any crap from the players and coaches, they will adjust to you in one helluva big hurry. And conversely, if you want to try and reason with coaches and players instead of just simply busting them when they deserve it, you'll be spending one heckuva lot of time and breath trying to convince people who are unconvincable.

Paralysis through analysis.....again. See unsporting conduct---> call unsporting conduct. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, it seems that it's always easier to make up reasons not to call a warranted technical foul than it is to just go ahead and call it.

I am one who would b in favor of reducing the T T penalty. Personally I would like to see one shot T like the NBA. Rationale. There are too many officials that think the penalty for a T is so severe ... could be a 4-5 point swing that there threshold is way high and it allows too many antics from coaches, and even some players... If it was one shot and POI you tell the individual that he got your attention, you have penalized it, and they are half way out the door.

We might take care of business earlier and more often. BTW same rationale that swinging elbows went from a T to a violation...

Agree with that...but...

These same officials will always find an excuse not to call a technical foul anyway, no matter what the penalty is. They want to be loved and they just can't understand that just ain't gonna happen. You can be respected, though. And imo coaches really don't respect officials that they can run rough-shod over.

Give up one FT to a bad FT-shooting opponent? You'll be seeing some coaches getting a "T" every single game. It'll be part of their game strategy.

The NFHS had exactly what you're suggesting 50 years ago iirc. They then went to 2FT's and losing the ball because they found that a single FT was no real deterrent to unsporting conduct.

I would like to see team control extended to include when a team has the ball for a throw-in - with appropriate exceptions made to keep the backcourt allowances as is for throw ins

If the official's arent' enforcing the six-foot box, what makes you think they would enforce the 14-foot box?

IMO, If official's don't have the cajones to do their job, another 8 feet is not going to help.

One has nothing to do with the other. As long as both teams are playing by the same rules, they both have the same chance to win.

Would identical rules for all be ideal? Perhaps, but maybe not. NFHS has different priorities than the NBA. Hell, baseball doesn't even have the same rules across the board, neither does football. And with basketball, you also add in FIBA just for fun.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that rec leagues will differ on which adaptations they add (running clocks, no press, no free throws, move the FT shooters up, one T is ejection, etc.) to support their different priorities and philosophies.

Maybe he's hoping coaches will be more likely to adhere to the 14 foot box without the officials having to do anything.

Sort of like those who advocate bumping up speed limits from 65 to 75 because everyone's driving 75 anyway.

note: I'm almost always in favor of higher speed limits, I just don't use the "because that's what they're doing anyway" argument.

In Fact, Announce It Over The Public Address System ...
 

Change the word, "They", to, "You", and you'll have a very short, but hopefully, effective, six word, coaches, and captains, pregame conference. Forget about equipment, and uniforms. Forget about sportsmanship, and the coaching box. Forget about points of emphasis. And definitely forget about the color of the line, "all the way around".

wouldn't it be fabulous?
 

Wouldn't it be cool if they made the OOB line different colors?

"Gentlemen, on that side of the court, the red line is OOB. On the other side, it's the blue line. Except under the baskets, where it'll be the Green line. Welcome to the Rainbow Center."

Mark Padgett: Can You Top This ???
 

Post o'the week.

I think they should make the OOB line the same color and design as the shoes the teams wear, so you wouldn't be able to tell if a player's foot was on the line.

I also think it should be mandatory to have whoopee cushions on the coach's chairs.

Oh yeah, all hot moms have to check in with the referees prior to tipoff.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in making my point. My issue was with rule changes that set up more reason for conflict, confusion and discussion.

I would love the idea of "if I see unsporting it is unsporting", but as I previously stated we've instituted some rules up here that equal accidental action with no intent but because of time and situation are required to be called tech's.

I do think that our job as well as everyone else's in the sport (coaches, fans, AD's, players) as stakeholders is to do things to help further the game. My point was that I didn't want to see rule changes to have more reasons have tech's called, as I didn't see that as positive step forward for building relationships bewteen the games stakeholders or making it clear to kids what constitutes being unsportsmanlike.

I don't consider a kid getting tangled up with the guy he's denying on a inbound the same thing as telling an official he's an a$$hole but by our rules the same penalty must be applied. So now the kid has gotten called for unsportsmanlike behaviour, (that wasn't unportsmanlike on his/her part as all) which in my mind diminishes the meaning of the call and its importance in the kid and coaches mind.

So I don't think lessening the tech penalty so more refs will call it creates a clear understanding of the importance of instilling sportsmanlike behaviour and clearly punishing that which we deem as unsportsmanlike in players or coaches if it becomes another infraction.

I can manage the game and the rule however it needs to, but if we're talking about rule changes in the best interest of the game I don't think more tech's for more reasons, or with less penalty is a good change.

Sorry if that's rambling!

Just because your FIBA rules are stoopid and need changing doesn't mean that NFHS high school rules should also be changed. Why should we institute a rule change to fix your problem? That just ain't very logical imo.

Very progressive of you. This is 2010, the NFHS is still in the 1990's on many things.

POI is sufficient for NCAA and would be fine at the HS level. HS coaches, players, and fans have a good understanding of the rule since it is frequently observed on TV. They still count toward the foul count(s) and eventually DQ.

The message is still clear that unsporting behavior(s) will be penalized.

I think that the issue is how much penalty. In NCAA the expectation of making FT's is higher. He11, some JV girls teams in HS can't make a FT all game. In such a case, getting the ball again at the division line ends up being the only penalty for the T.

I'm not talking about Ice Cream
 

Other than half way to DQ, you mean.

Concerning the idea of stopping the clock under a minute of play after a made basket, how many table crews really put all their attention into the game?

Also there is a bit of lag time between hearing a whistle/seeing the signal & the clock operator stopping the clock.

Just you, Champ.

What I am meaning is that the home book & the clock operator are buddies & chatting about everything during the game, plus the game. As well having more than 4 people at the scorers' table can be distracting (3 people for those that don't have shot clock).

I admit there are times I do get sidetracked :(, but that's also because I periodically pay attention to my surroundings, especially if something is happening that shouldn't be.

Are you proposing having one person to do all 4 tasks, so that there is less distraction?

Or maybe we should separate the people at the table and have the shot clock operator sit in one corner and the home team's scorer in another so that they aren't tempted to be social?

Or maybe we can have them all sit in their own plexiglass cubes so that they can see the action and hear whistles, but not talk to each other?


Seriously, is it really that hard to pay attention to a game for 32 minutes, that, at most schools, you are getting paid for?

I had an away game last year where the host scorer spent more time yelling at the referee than she did doing her job. Considering the lead official is usually a no-nonsense type of guy, I'm very surprised he didn't address that. :(

Of course that doesn't top the game a few weeks previous where the home scorer was editorializing every call he disagreed with. But yet when the home team was pressing with a 23 point lead (league rule: no press after 20 pt lead), he was amazingly silent. :p

I realize it's easy to get caught int he game action when it's a sibling or child in the game, but if you can do an effecitve job at the table, it's time to find another seat for the game. {/soapbox}

What I'm meaning is that the personnel become such good friends/buddies that they want to chat to catch up on current affairs.

Last year I got into the habit of having the table setup as such: Center of table is the clock/scoreboard & the home/official book. The visitor's book next to the home/official book (even if that meant the visitor book being next to the home bench). The shot clock next to the clock/scoreboard.

During 4A Regionals, the books were next to their repective benches & there were a few times were discripencies happened, due to no communication between the books. (Table setup pre-set by tournament director).

Some table personnel can also walk and chew gum at the same time. :rolleyes:

I thought it was "walk, chew gum, & talk on their cell phone at the same time"?

The game might be better served if you minded your own business instead of everybody elses.

"walk, chew gum, monitor the locker room entrance, inspect the opposing team's uniforms, control the fans, insist on overly-strict adherance to minor administrative rules, question the officials and complain to the principal at the same time"

Look -- there's a fine line between "professionalism" and "slavish adherance to the strict letter of the rules." All too often, tables dont even approach the professionalism line, and I think it's great that you are doing so, especially at the C-level games. But, going overboard will not win you many friends and will make it less likely that your concerns are heard when they are valid.

In my experience, in three different metro areas in two different states, table crews at the high school level are just fine and can handle this easily. I would also say that if they can do a shot clock, they can handle stopping the clock in the last minute.
There might be some C level crews that struggle, but so what?

Sorry, but I was raised in a Military household with strict adherence of rules/regulations. I was raised that there should be no relaxing when it came to adherence of rules/regulations & that no matter the circumstance(s) those rules/regulations are to be follwoed as they are written without any deviations.

Too many "Jerk-offs" look at those same rules/regulations as only suggestions/guidelines when they are written as such that they are supposed to be followed to the full extent written.

I have realized over the past couple of years that, especially at the C-Squad level, that some of the players are still in the learning stages so they are in a sense still in "Basic Training" so with appropriate guidance & discipline, learning can be achieved.

Concerning everything you listed, I have never done all those things at once. With the experiences I have had working in security/crowd control, it can be hard not to put full focus on the action on the court, if I see something in the stands that should not be happening. However I let personnel know of that occurance so that it can be rectified. Anymore with approaching school administration, I only approach with concerns/complaints if there is a genuine need for action to take place. Concerning the questioning of floor officials, I just ask questions about what I saw & ask for clarification on why it was called/not called.

LMAO, that's also because majority of the time those working Sub-Varsity games are either still learning what needs to be done or just don't really have a full understanding of the rules/regualtions that all Varsity-level crews should have.

Sorry, but you're sureashell an over-officious little prick, aren't ya.:rolleyes:

Different people have different upbringings, or different standards. If a person can't adapt then that person needs to be institutionalized. :rolleyes::eek:

Good grief.

You will find that not everyone in the real world operates in an orderly, proficient, military manner.

Litotes, IMHO. ;)

Might be the most unintentionally apropos thing ever posted on this board. At worst, it's tied for first.

I don't understand why anyone would want to institute a rule such as stopping the clock in the last minute. Why change the rules for only a portion of a game? If that's the case, how about no traveling in the first quarter, only call fouls of someone hits the floor, and instant reply on all double whistles. Call me a purist, but I don't see why the last minute...2 minutes....8 minutes...whatever...needs to be treated any differently form the rest of the game. The NBA is ruining the game of basketball.

To be fair, every major rules code of basketball except for NFHS basketball has the clock stop after a field goal under a certain time limit (NBA-final minute of 1-3 quarters and final two minutes of 4th/OT(s). NCAA-final minute of 2nd half/OT(s). FIBA-final two minutes of 4th/OT(s)). Not sure how this is the NBA "ruining the game of basketball." Obviously, the powers that be under different organizations don't think so.

And it's not like other sports don't have different timing rules for different periods...think the NFL and NCAA football.

Apparently no one gets the joke considering the emotes I posted afterwards.

I was saying, in other words, I've learned to adapt.

It really makes perfect sense. No one really cares if the ball bounces away from a thrower or if a thrower deliberately wastes a couple of seconds when there is 7 minutes left in the 2nd quarter....those 2-3 seconds are irrelevant. However, if a team is up by 3 with 25 seconds to go, 2-3 seconds can make the difference. Stopping the clock on the make and resuming on the throwin completion simply eliminates the opportunity for a team to unfairly burn a few extra seconds when they really matter.

If He Jumped Off A Bridge, Would You ???
 

Why not the NFHS?

The clock would have to be reset after every made basket, that is why. :D

Peace

What he said...without the smiley!

The colleges and pros have trained, mature table crews. They also have instant replay available at the D1 and pro levels to get the clock right. In high school you never know what or who you're going to get as a timer. It would be freaking pandemonium in some high school games.

Aren't Pro & College Table Crews also trained officials as well?

Majority of the HS Table Crews either have a love of the game & the team & work the table as a show of support or to them it's an extra paycheck.

However not every HS Table Crew even tries to have an understanding of the rules except for the bare minimum they need to know.

With the continual addition of new rules or changes of those rules, it can be hard for a person to know about those changes unless they, themselves, take the initiative to learn.

Not necessarily. I know some people that have been at the table in certain situations are officials at lower levels, but that does not mean that is the case in all situations or a mandate.

And this is why the rules are the way they are. People that run the table would be a problem if they are not trained or paying attention. Not so say that the rules will never change, but a lot of new rules table people are often unaware.

Peace

Actually during the championship games for WIAA instant replay can be used for clock reset.

It's for reasons like this I was thinking of a similar program for Table Crew as for the floor officials. This way everyone is on equal footing when it comes to rules/regulations.

Clueless. :(

This a NF rule that allows states to use instant replay if they like. Many states have not gone that route with instant replay. I am also not talking about what goes on in a rare case. The vast majority of games are run in local high schools with volunteers or people who support the local school or team. These are not highly paid, highly accountable positions. At least that is not the case when many lower level games in my area are run by players on the varsity team that are required or paid to work a freshman game for a couple of hours, but is paying more attention to their cell phone than the game. I am sure the State Finals in your area has adults and possibly people who run the clock for the venue or has a more extensive background at the college or pro level.

Peace

Actually for the state tournament, it's a pool of people that ask to work the games that are table crew. If I hadn't of messed my leg up last year I would of been working the 1A State Tournament. For the 4A Regional Tournament I've done the past couple of years, the table personnel have been from the local high schools that asked if they could work the tournament. Same can be said for the state tournaments.

That's very true concerning during the season about table crews. The person that is timer/scoreboard for Varsity is being paid $35 a night (for 2 games). Whereas I'm volunteer (3 games a night). The difference is however I am continually learning & adapting to the new rules/regulations, whereas the person doing Varsity is still in the habit of using rules/regulations from 5-10 years ago.

The person that does the Varsity Games has been doing it since before I was in High School & before. However, from life experiences, not always are those that have been in the position the longest always the best for the job. Knowledge & the ability to learn should outrank experience. Just because a person plays the game (Varsity players doing Sub-Varsity table), is not always an advantage.

We pre-game the proper timing procedures with the table. Whether they follow what we pre-game with them is a whole 'nother matter. If they don't, we correct them.....or replace them. I find it very hard to believe that you have a varsity timer that is constantly screwing-up and nothing is done about it.

Starting and stopping the clock when an official blows their whistle or gives a visual signal isn't freaking rocket science, no matter what slant you try to put on it. It's a matter of paying attention. We've got 14-year old kids working the clock locally that do a great job and we also have some adults that constantly screw up.

Had to look that one up. Thank you for increasing my vocabulary. Is there an mbyron "Word of the Day" mailing list I can sign up for? ;)

Sure. Send me your ATM number and PIN &c. :D

I didn't ask for the Padgett Gag of the Day. :p

Sounds like you are doing a good job lobbying for the position. Why don't you post the contact info for your AD so we can give you a resounding endorsement?


NOT!!!!!