Rule change?

CoachP

Mark Padgett wrote
We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

You cannot use the entire court the whole time because you still are required within 10 seconds to advance into the frontcourt.

CoachP

NFHS. Change the lower "block" on the free throw lane to a "dash". Or allow player closest to endline to stand on the current block...why such a big space for one spot?

Indianaref

CoachP wrote
NFHS. Change the lower "block" on the free throw lane to a "dash". Or allow player closest to endline to stand on the current block...why such a big space for one spot?

If we shut down the lower block like NCAA, then I would want to see lane restrictions lifted on release.

26 Year Gap

With more and more players inbounding under their basket and hanging out before going onto the court, I would like to see the penalty reduced to a violation from a technical. This was discussed at the last rules confab and will come up again this spring. They would have to make this an exception so that the other delays returning to the court keep the same penalty. This is why the change was not made this year. They did not want an exception.

eg-italy

Mark Padgett wrote
We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

Mark, do you know that this is already the rule in FIBA?

Ciao

Adam

eg-italy wrote
Mark, do you know that this is already the rule in FIBA?

Ciao

😀

That might just get him to reconsider. 😉

rainmaker

Mark Padgett wrote
We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

I guess this "contradiction" doesn't seem that egregious to me, since it's there but it's expensive. THe cost of a TO seems reasonable.

inigo montoya

rainmaker wrote
I guess this "contradiction" doesn't seem that egregious to me, since it's there but it's expensive. THe cost of a TO seems reasonable.

Exactly. You are talking about 5 times maximum during a regulation game that a team could "buy back" the backcourt with a time-out.

Adam

inigo montoya wrote
Exactly. You are talking about 5 times maximum during a regulation game that a team could "buy back" the backcourt with a time-out.

Yup, and as coach pointed out, they only get it for 10 seconds.

Boiler14

In the first half I see no need to have the double bonus after the 10th foul.

Therefore, all common fouls beginning on the 7th team foul should be one and one.

I'd also like to see the clock stopped in the last minute of the 4th quarter after a made basket. However, I think this rule would create more problems than it is worth with a lot of timers not doing it properly/consistantly.

Coltdoggs

Timeouts called by coaches...

Make it the players on the floor so that we are not put in positions where we may have to divert our attention away from the play.

Stat-Man

inigo montoya wrote
Exactly. You are talking about 5 times maximum during a regulation game that a team could "buy back" the backcourt with a time-out.

What about having the NBA rule where inbounding into BC after achieving FC status is allowed only in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter/overtimes.

My rule change suggestion would be to adopt the NBA's last two minute rule for each half where if a team had 5 or fewer team fouls in a half, they would be over the limit on the second foul inside 2 minutes. I know this wasn't too popular last time I suggested it, but I still think it would be a good idea. Of course, it would just give something new to confuse other scorers who have no exposure to pro games. 😀

Mark Padgett

CoachP wrote
You cannot use the entire court the whole time because you still are required within 10 seconds to advance into the frontcourt.

Not if you keep inbounding it into the back court. You get 10, plus 10, plus 10, etc. That's my point.

BTW - I can't believe that after all this time, we still have posters who continue to say that coaches "call" time outs. 😠

I guess my work here has barely started. 🙁

inigo montoya

Well, coaches do literally "call" "time-out" -- they just can't take time out.

tomegun

They don't "call" it, they request it.

I would like to eliminate one timeout by playing 16 minute halves. I seems to work pretty good in the summer, I don't see why it couldn't work during the regular season.

inigo montoya

In the sense that they loudly and verbally make known their desire to have a time out, they do literally "call" it. But coaches "call" a lot of things that have no effect in and of themselves.

Nevadaref

Reduce the number of time-outs per team per game to three by eliminating 30 second time-outs.

Play the game in halves.

Eliminate the marked lane-space nearest the basket as the NCAA did this year.

Strike new interpretation #10.

Scooby

Sit the coaches down. No more standing.

mbyron

Scooby wrote
Sit the coaches down. No more standing.

It's not the standing I mind, it's the speaking.