Another suggested FED rule change

[grunewar]

I asked a coach yesterday.

He said, "24 second clock."

Yes, no, maybe so?

[JugglingReferee]

24 is too short for that age group. Just my 2 cents.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Because that's when kids get hurt.

Now, here is where I might agree with you, but only because I understand your context. I don't remember seeing anyone specifically injured from end-of-game fouling in any of the levels I work. But I understand since you work with a lot of younger kids, this could be a problem, since at that age they may not know the "proper" way to foul, and the coaches they have may not know the proper way to teach it. Add to it the fact they are probably a little less coordinated, and I can see where you might have seen a few more of those types of problems than some of the rest of us.

While I wouldn't have a big problem with you implementing that type of rule for your leagues, I still don't see it as a problem in HS and above. Even so, it might cut down on a couple of injuries in those situations, but it wouldn't eliminate them altogether, and it would also take away a legitimate strategy to allow for comebacks in games.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

24 is too short for that age group. Just my 2 cents.

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

[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.

[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 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 tref

i dont like it. Just adds one more thing that we would have to converse with them about...

+100!

[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.

[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?

[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?