Another suggested FED rule change

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

Until the economy turns around, I don't see this happening any time soon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

I think this is another solution in search of a problem. People want to implement this to combat what, two games a year per official. And they consistently use, as evidence, the results of 1 or 2 games nationwide per year that are aberrant.

It's just not a consistent problem, even if you consider it a problem.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

NEGATIVE...I have college games where shot clock operation is a problem, can you imagine it at the high school level?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think this is another solution in search of a problem. People want to implement this to combat what, two games a year per official. And they consistently use, as evidence, the results of 1 or 2 games nationwide per year that are aberrant.

It's just not a consistent problem, even if you consider it a problem.

I think if there is a choice between more games with 3 on a crew or a shot clock--and they are both 'expense' choices in the eyes of school budget directors--I am going with crews of 3 every single time.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NEGATIVE...I have college games where shot clock operation is a problem, can you imagine it at the high school level?

At any level shot clock operation can be a problem, game clock operation can be a problem at any level.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

Should be at least available via state adoption

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

Why?

[DesMoines]

1) I'd love to go to halves, but I'm not sure why. Probably just two fewer "Ok coach, first horn... let's go..." may be reason enough.

2) No shot clock, please - I'm with BNR on this one. Administration for sub-varsity would be a nightmare. Half the time the kids running the clock/book now have to be reminded to stay the heck off their cell phones during the game... even during time outs. "These are extra opportunities to double check that you match up, not to text your sweetie." Which usually garners an eye-roll, but generally stops the problem.

3) For TXAggie: How about a 10-second runoff in the last minute (like football) for a running clock infraction?

4) Going back to the release would make it easier to focus on rebounding action.
Would the shooter and those behind the arc still have to hold for the rim or is everybody free?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

1) I'd love to go to halves, but I'm not sure why. Probably just two fewer "Ok coach, first horn... let's go..." may be reason enough.

From an officiating and fan POV halves have more of a flow to them that do quarters. Two less opportunities for coaches to "play for the last shot"

Two less shot no shot decisions and scoring should increase a tad because the game is uninterrupted two less times.

[IowaMike]

1.) I would prefer 16 minute halves too; it would keep the game going and enhance continuity in my opinion. I don't know why some folks suggest 18 minute halves; high school games are 32 minutes long and I see no reason to lengthen them to 36 minutes.

2.) I would love to do away with the one and one on free throws too; once you get to seven fouls in a half it's two shots.

3.) I don't know what you could do about trailing teams fouling late in games. It is a pain sometimes but I don't really consider it a problem. I suppose we could go to the old NBA three to make two in the final two minutes of games; that would at least make fouling down the stretch less rewarding for the trailing team, although it could also penalize the team that is leading if they commit a foul. I'd be inclined to do nothing about this.

4.) I understand that they are trying to clean up physical play on free throws with the current rule, but I would be in favor of entering the lane on release. If they get too physical call a foul. Call it tight from the start of the game and they will clean it up on the free throw rebounding action.

5.) I'm really sick of being the uniform police; jewelry is pretty easy to enforce, don't wear it. I personally don't give a rats behind what style or color of headband/wristband a kid wears and don't think the Fed should either. Undershirts I understand, they are part of the uniform and in my opinion should be the same color as the jersey if they show. I think all of that crap about the size, color, manufacturers logo etc on sweatbands is a waste of time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

4.) I understand that they are trying to clean up physical play on free throws with the current rule, but I would be in favor of entering the lane on release. If they get too physical call a foul. Call it tight from the start of the game and they will clean it up on the free throw rebounding action.

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

+1 And that is why they have made changes such as:

taking away 2 lane spaces

moving players out one space

further defining the 3 ft deep lane space

ruling that one foot must be near the lane line

Call the violations and the violations will stop.

[IowaMike]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

I could make the same argument about enforcement under the current rules; a lot of officials allow far too much leeway and won't call violations for entering the lane early. Make it a point of emphasis and put the onus on the officials to enforce it; that's our job. It's in our best interest to clean up that kind of activity anyway; makes the game a lot better to officiate. I just don't see it as a problem. If you have lousy officials who don't do their job, I guess they won't get as much work.

[Mark Padgett]

Ya' know - perhaps a POE for next year should be to call intentional fouls properly at the end of games.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

I could make the same argument about enforcement under the current rules; a lot of officials allow far too much leeway and won't call violations for entering the lane early. Make it a point of emphasis and put the onus on the officials to enforce it; that's our job. It's in our best interest to clean up that kind of activity anyway; makes the game a lot better to officiate. I just don't see it as a problem. If you have lousy officials who don't do their job, I guess they won't get as much work.

Maybe so, but the effect on the game is in the direction desired by the NFHS. A little early but still not rough vs. still a little early and rough.