NFHS survey questionnaire

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I seriously hope this rule is changed back. This has been the cause of many unnecessary conflict because if we do not hear them they assume it is our fault. I seriously hope this is changed next year. I am not counting on it, but it is a necessary change for sure.

Peace

Make sure you vote. I would love to have it changed back. I am very surprised that it made the survey.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Make sure you vote. I would love to have it changed back. I am very surprised that it made the survey.

I did already. Still do not think the people on the committee will understand why this is a problem. Still too many non-officials making decisions (I do not care what someone says or brings up one guy that officiated 20 years ago as an example).

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did already. Still do not think the people on the committee will understand why this is a problem. Still too many non-officials making decisions (I do not care what someone says or brings up one guy that officiated 20 years ago as an example).

Peace

I try to look over when I anticipate that a request might be made. But, if I am trail tableside and am refereeing a tight matchup in the forecourt by Team A's bench, I may not recognize that coach B is requesting a timeout. Your point is well taken. As a player, I had to request a timeout if my coach wanted one. Players recognize their coaches' voices from getting yelled at in practice. A coach getting worked up at us because we do not hear him or see him right away because we are focused on the players does not need to happen. Shifting the responsibility to his players would diffuse those moments. At least, for us!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I try to look over when I anticipate that a request might be made. But, if I am trail tableside and am refereeing a tight matchup in the forecourt by Team A's bench, I may not recognize that coach B is requesting a timeout. Your point is well taken. As a player, I had to request a timeout if my coach wanted one. Players recognize their coaches' voices from getting yelled at in practice. A coach getting worked up at us because we do not hear him or see him right away because we are focused on the players does not need to happen. Shifting the responsibility to his players would diffuse those moments. At least, for us!

I have had about 3 incidents this year over this. One coach accused me of "refusing to grant the time out." Not the fact that he barely raised his voice and the other fact that he was sitting down (as a result of a uniform T BTW). But somehow it was my fault that he talked very low in a loud gym. Granted I was standing next to him, but did not hear his words or know he wanted a timeout at all. I had another guy get upset when his player was in trouble and could not understand why we did not grant a timeout when no possession by his player was clear. Coaches are too stupid to inform their players to ask for the request when the coaches yells. We are not paying attention to them and to put that burden on us is silly. This is why if coaches read anything that we did they would do a better job to get our attention or get over it when we do not hear their request.

Peace

[Rich]

I voted to keep the timeouts exactly as they are. While I can't stand coaches who meekly request a timeout and then get upset when we may have something better going on, allowing only the players to request during a live ball would be even worse, IMO. I lived through that reality for a number of years before moving to what we have now.

I would like to see the free throw restrictions end for all in the marked lane spaces at the release. Most rebounding now is based on which way the ball bounces out rather than on getting proper position and boxing out. And players have been pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with since the change. I work about a dozen college games a season, and I see no problems with how those games go -- if someone fouls during a rebound or trying to get position, CALL THE FOUL.

I'd like to see halves rather than quarters (I'd even move to 18 minute halves like MN and give an automatic timeout at the first stoppage under 10 per half) and would like to see the NFHS move to a shot clock (with the 5 year grandfathering provision).

My vote, I'm sure, will be completely ignored.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I voted to keep the timeouts exactly as they are. While I can't stand coaches who meekly request a timeout and then get upset when we may have something better going on, allowing only the players to request during a live ball would be even worse, IMO. I lived through that reality for a number of years before moving to what we have now.

I would like to see the free throw restrictions end for all in the marked lane spaces at the release. Most rebounding now is based on which way the ball bounces out rather than on getting proper position and boxing out. And players have been pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with since the change. I work about a dozen college games a season, and I see no problems with how those games go -- if someone fouls during a rebound or trying to get position, CALL THE FOUL.

I'd like to see halves rather than quarters (I'd even move to 18 minute halves like MN and give an automatic timeout at the first stoppage under 10 per half) and would like to see the NFHS move to a shot clock (with the 5 year grandfathering provision).

My vote, I'm sure, will be completely ignored.

I voted the exact same way except for quarters vs. halves.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I voted the exact same way except for quarters vs. halves.

I like four periods. Our prep school games are in halves, and I miss the break at the eight minute mark to regroup, and to possibly have a short meeting with my partner to go over some things that we have noticed, and may need to address in next eight minutes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I like four periods. Our prep school games are in halves, and I miss the break at the eight minute mark to regroup, and to possibly have a short meeting with my partner to go over some things that we have noticed, and may need to address in next eight minutes.

Officials who want to keep the game played in quarters because they like the break to regroup (and to suck on the oxygen tank that the EMT has at the end of the bench) are old geezer. Wait, I resemble that remark. LOL

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Of course I have a youngin' to carry me up and down the court. LOL

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Officials who want to keep the game played in quarters because they like the break to regroup (and to suck on the oxygen tank that the EMT has at the end of the bench) are old geezer. Wait, I resemble that remark. LOL

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Of course I have a youngin' to carry me up and down the court. LOL

Add a timeout and you will be fine.

The game actually flows better with the two halves if you ask me.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Add a timeout and you will be fine.

The game actually flows better with the two halves if you ask me.

Peace

Put a required 60-second official's timeout at the first stoppage under 9 minutes (18 minute halves) or 8 minutes (16 minute halves).

I just want to eliminate 2 more last second shots -- many times a team will hold the ball the last :45 to 1:00 looking for the "last shot." Then someone launches themselves into a defender from 30 feet out and everyone looks for a foul.

The game, to me, flows better without quarter breaks.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Add a timeout and you will be fine.

The game actually flows better with the two halves if you ask me.

Peace

Rut:

You and I have officiated far more games than we care to admit to under both timing periods. I agree with you that games played in halves have a greater possiblity to have more flow, but college games that are played under electronic broadcast rules are really no better than games played in quaters.

On a side note: The first time and only time I officiated an electronic broadcast game was the Polish National Men's Team vs. Cleveand State Univ. in Nov. 1993. Three days later I was back to officiating women's D-III, but I was looking for those broadcast TO's, .

MTD, Sr.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Add a timeout and you will be fine.

The game actually flows better with the two halves if you ask me.

Peace

I agree with both of these points...Game is shorter if time outs are not used....Game is same length if they are.....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Rut and Rich have raised valid points with today's H.S. coaches.

As many of you know, I look at the historical context of a rule.

From a historical standpoint Coaches are an afterthought. The rules state that a team consists of five players, one of whom is the Captain. The reason that only players could request a TO was because, until the 1940's, when a team was granted a TO, the teams huddled on the court and the HC's could not talk to them.

As many of you know, this is my 41st year of officiating basketball; I started officiating in the 1971-72 (boys'/girls' H.S. using NBCUSC Rules). I started officiating women's college basketball (NAGWS Basketball Rules) in 1974-75.

The unique thing about the NAGWS Basketball Rules was that it had the same timeout rule per head coaches that the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules Committees adopted in the 1990's. The NAGWS Basetball Rules were a combination of NBCUSC Rules and FIBA rules (but mostly NBCUSC). Only the HC (or Asst. HC) can request a TO in FIBA rules, and the procedure is not the same as in the NAGWS Rules (which is the rule now used in the NFHS and NCAA).

The NCAA took over the women's tournament from the AIAW in the mid-1980's and stopped using the NAGWS Rules. Instead the NCAA created the NCAA Women's Rules Committee which then wrote its own set of rules which were very close to the NAGWS Rules but still closer to the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules.

So, I am saying, that I have had 38 years of experience officiating games under the HC timeout rule (and all honesty, I doubt if there is anybody on the Forum that has that much experience with the rule). What does that mean? I have seen the rule evolve in the United States over that time.

When I started officiating women's college basketball HC's did not go nuts on the sideline screaming: TIMEOUT!! TIMEOUT!! when there was a loose ball on the floor. The idea behind the rule was to enable the HC to request a TO when the Official was within easy communication range rather than to tell a player to request a TO when the Official was standing right next to the HC.

The NFHS and NCAA Men's Committees had watched the women HC's request TO's for over ten years and said: Hey! We want that rule too. The first year or so, HC's at the H.S. and men's level were composed in when they made their requests. But that composure did not last long as the battle for every possession became a fight to the death.

I understand the pressure that officials are under when a HC or both HC's are screaming: TIMEOUT!! TIMEOUT!! when there is a loose ball on the floor. It is utter insanity on the part of the HC's.

I guess I am trying to say is to stay focused in those situations. Be aware of TO requests but officiate the action on the floor first.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Sorry for the long post.

[APG]

I guess I don't see the big deal about coaches being able to ask for timeouts. Most of the time, an official while be able to hear/see the request. If the coach isn't able to get our attention, then tough luck as the action on the floor is most important. He's also has players on the floor that can more easily get our attention. If a coach wants to give me lip about it, I just calmly respond why I wasn't able to acknowledge him. And I think we get an overwhelming amount of coach's request in a timely matter as is...especially if we have a good sense of game awareness.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I voted to keep the timeouts exactly as they are. While I can't stand coaches who meekly request a timeout and then get upset when we may have something better going on, allowing only the players to request during a live ball would be even worse, IMO. I lived through that reality for a number of years before moving to what we have now.

I officiated pre-coaching request too and I never saw a single problem arise with a player calling for a timeout. Not a single time. And usually the coach had to get the player's attention which got out attention. Instead now they just assume we hear them unlike they did before. And when players ask for timeouts now, at least we are looking at them.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would like to see the free throw restrictions end for all in the marked lane spaces at the release. Most rebounding now is based on which way the ball bounces out rather than on getting proper position and boxing out. And players have been pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with since the change. I work about a dozen college games a season, and I see no problems with how those games go -- if someone fouls during a rebound or trying to get position, CALL THE FOUL.

I'd like to see halves rather than quarters (I'd even move to 18 minute halves like MN and give an automatic timeout at the first stoppage under 10 per half) and would like to see the NFHS move to a shot clock (with the 5 year grandfathering provision).

My vote, I'm sure, will be completely ignored.

I voted the same way on the rest of these. The only concern I have with a shot clock is we have a hard enough time getting good lower level college people. I would think it would be hard to find people in HS games to do the same without screwing up often. But I would be OK if they brought it in.

Peace