If I could change one rule, it would be....

[chseagle]

Not all the table crew for Varsity Games gets paid. My wife & I do Varsity Shot Clock volunteer, nor is the Varsity scorer getting paid.

The only way I see that the table crew should get any sort of pay (cash-wise) is if they have to go through all the same training/testing that the floor officials have to. However I don't see that becoming mandatory any time soon.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If they'd do it, they'd have to mandate by a certain time period...say five to seven years. I think that would be plenty of time for schools to add a shot clock. You're right about schools having to pay the shot clock operator and that's the only issue I'd see.

I agree we'll probably see it become allowed by NFHS by state adoption...much like instant replay during state tournaments, media timeouts, etc.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Not all the table crew for Varsity Games gets paid. My wife & I do Varsity Shot Clock volunteer, nor is the Varsity scorer getting paid.

The only way I see that the table crew should get any sort of pay (cash-wise) is if they have to go through all the same training/testing that the floor officials have to. However I don't see that becoming mandatory any time soon.

The cost issue has nothing to do with the people running it and everything to do with the purchase and installation of the equipment itself.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The cost issue has nothing to do with the people running it and everything to do with the purchase and installation of the equipment itself.

In WI, it's the cost of the people that the ADs mention first. The schools probably could get the cost of the shot clocks paid for by sponsors, as they do with the new scoreboards that appears at schools pretty often. But around here, all table staff is paid.

Personally, I don't see the need. My game last week happens maybe once per season. If both teams are happy to let the clock run down, who am I to argue? Sure, I'm bored by it and the fans are bored by it, but I'm just the official on the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

In WI, it's the cost of the people that the ADs mention first. The schools probably could get the cost of the shot clocks paid for by sponsors, as they do with the new scoreboards that appears at schools pretty often. But around here, all table staff is paid.

Personally, I don't see the need. My game last week happens maybe once per season. If both teams are happy to let the clock run down, who am I to argue? Sure, I'm bored by it and the fans are bored by it, but I'm just the official on the court.

Not every district can come up with the sponsors to pay for a shot clock; although giving them three to five years to do it would help. There are some districts that simply don't have the necessary patronage. They're lucky to get the local businesses (all of them) to pitch in every twenty years to get a scoreboard.

It's one thing with the uniforms; they replace those anyway so the money is already budgeted. The lead time was given so the schools wouldn't have to spend extra money by replacing uniforms ahead of schedule.

I agree with you, too, that I don't see the need. To me, it's like all the effort at fixing the "problem" of extra fouls late in the game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To me, it's like all the effort at fixing the "problem" of extra fouls late in the game.

The fix for this is "making free throws."

I did call an intentional last week, though, my first one in two years. Two handed push in the back on a late break, similar to the one in the college game a week or so ago. Too many people think that because the player is trying to foul, it's intentional -- and they just don't get the spirit and intent of what the rule is trying to prevent.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Too many people think that because the player is trying to foul, it's intentional -- and they just don't get the spirit and intent of what the rule is trying to prevent.

Or, they think that fouling is "part of the game" (cringe), and calling an intentional is ruining that part of that game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

They think that fouling is "part of the game".

Be careful here bainsey. Forum members who are not officials may misunderstand you. According to the NFHS, fouling is part of the game:

NFHS 2006-07 Point of Emphasis Intentional Fouls: "Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game"

NFHS 2005-06 Point of Emphasis Intentional Fouls: Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped."

Originally Posted by bainsey

Calling an intentional is ruining that part of that game.

Agree. Stoopid fans. Stoopid coaches. Stoopid players.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Or, they think that fouling is "part of the game" (cringe), and calling an intentional is ruining that part of that game.

It is part of the game. The NFHS has said so. If the players foul in the right way, whether they intend to foul or not, it doesn't matter.

An intentional foul should pretty much call itself and the official should be prepared to step up and make the call when it happens.