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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It takes TWO teams to play that game.

Of course. And I don't get why the superior team, up 9, wouldn't put some pressure on, but they don't pay me to coach.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It takes TWO teams to play that game.

That's how I feel.

I'm in one of the forty-something states that doesn't have a shot clock in high school hoops, though fans cry for it every so often. I'm against the idea, mostly because I fear the problems that will go with it -- incorrect resets, et al -- particularly in sub-varsity games.

Others may feel "that's not basketball," but if you want the ball, go after it.

[BktBallRef]

I have one of those type games once every 2 or 3 years. I just don't think it happens often enough to necessitate a rule change.

I do think it would hurt teams that aren't very good. I can't imagine how bad it would be for some of the 1A girls games we see around here.

[zm1283]

I wouldn't mind a shot clock for high school, but it would be a chore to get competent operators at each school, plus it would make the bad games that much worse. I can't imagine a team that already can't hold on to the ball chucking up bad shots when they don't want to. There are some games when I would rather see both teams in a zone with little action. The aformentioned cost would be prohibitive as well.

I like the idea of resetting the team foul totals after each quarter and going to two shots on the 5th foul of the quarter. It would help the pace and flow of the game.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I like the idea of resetting the team foul totals after each quarter and going to two shots on the 5th foul of the quarter. It would help the pace and flow of the game.

This is the FIBA rule and it rocks!

FIBA also has a shot clock, too, which I really like.

The pace of the games is great.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I have one of those type games once every 2 or 3 years. I just don't think it happens often enough to necessitate a rule change.

I do think it would hurt teams that aren't very good. I can't imagine how bad it would be for some of the 1A girls games we see around here.

Yep. If teams can recruit / draft, then the shot clock makes some sense.

If you have to play with whatever kids are in your district, then you should be able to do what it takes to keep the game close / give your team the best chance to win. And, if that's playing for a low-scoring game, so be it.

I'd rather see a rule to the effect that, if a team pulls the ball out, and if the other team let's them, the coaches must get together and agree on a time put on the clock. Adjust the clock down, and re-start. No sense just standing around while the clock goes down from 6:00 to 1:00. If both teams agree, then put 1:00 on the clock and go.

(and, yes, I know there's the rule that the game can be shortened if both coaches and the R agree. So, what I think we really need is a process / mechanic to make this happen, rather than a rules change.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I have one of those type games once every 2 or 3 years. I just don't think it happens often enough to necessitate a rule change.

I do think it would hurt teams that aren't very good. I can't imagine how bad it would be for some of the 1A girls games we see around here.

My thoughts precisely.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is the FIBA rule and it rocks!

FIBA also has a shot clock, too, which I really like.

The pace of the games is great.

I'd be happy to make this change (5 FTs per quarter bonus). I'd even do the NBE 2-fouls-in-the-last-2-minutes.

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Fair enough, Billy. How about, in their eyes, "fouling without making any effort to go for the ball is part of the game?"