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

26 Year Gap

AllPurposeGamer wrote
You'll never get the people in this forum to agree to those rules changes...why you ask? Cause it'd be too much like the NBA.

I do think we'll see the timeout rule happen at some point. I also wouldn't mind experimenting with resetting the penalty count each quarter.

Actually, back in the 60s, I believe the bonus reset every quarter and it was on the 5th foul. However, the first four fouls were 1 shot unless a shooting foul or an offensive foul. Not sure when the possession took place, but probably there was strategic fouling going on. Especially in the 4th qtr of close games. I remember this from watching HS games when I was in grade school, so other guys who may have been calling games back then could probably expand on it.

Stat-Man

Scratch85 wrote
I would like to get rid of the jump ball to start the game. Give the first (start of game) possession to the V. Then alternate at each quarter regardless of AP arrow. Reset AP with possession at each quarter.

Kind of like "first bats" and "last bats" in baseball. Given the AP it will still awlays be within one of being even. And, Home team will have possession to start the 4th quarter.

Something similar happens under NBA rules. The team that loses the jump gets the ball to start quarters 2 & 3 and the jump winner gets the ball for the 4th quarter.

Raymond

AllPurposeGamer wrote
You'll never get the people in this forum to agree to those rules changes...why you ask? Cause it'd be too much like the NBA.

I do think we'll see the timeout rule happen at some point. I also wouldn't mind experimenting with resetting the penalty count each quarter.

RichMSN wrote
Why should a team be allowed to move the ball up on a timeout? I know the NBE does it, but even there it really makes no sense at all.

The NBA makes no bones about this rule. They have it to benefit the offense.

tjones1

BktBallRef wrote
Not gonna happen.

With entering on the release, there's too much unnecessary contact and jockeying for position on MADE free throws. They've gone to great lengths over the past 10 years to cut down on such play. Changing the rule would be a complete change in philosophy.

I agree. But, then again, they stated time and time again that they had no plans to move the players up one space on the free throw lane.

CDurham wrote
Coaches calling timeouts while play is live on the court.

Already in place.... 😉

Back In The Saddle wrote
Not grant a HC's time out request unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped. I'd settle for unless the ball is dead, but would prefer both dead ball and stopped clock.

Ahhh, maybe that's what you meant.

BBrules wrote
Simplify the backcourt violation rules

Snaqwells wrote
Get rid of that stupid BC interp. I'd be satisfied with that.

As someone has already asked... how?! I think they are pretty straight forward.... and I agree Snaq, get rid of that silly interp.

BillyMac

26 Year Gap wrote
Actually, back in the 60s, I believe the bonus reset every quarter and it was on the 5th foul. However, the first four fouls were 1 shot unless a shooting foul or an offensive foul.

As a player back in the olden days, I kind of remember something like that. I was too busy playing to have any real understanding of the rules. When the official tossed me the ball and said, "One shot", I just took the ball, and shot it (it usually missed). Now that you bring it up, I do remember lots of one shot free throws, definitely a lot more than in today's game.

I hope that someone who really remembers the rule (Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., Jurassic Referee, others) can follow up on this.

APG

RichMSN wrote
Why should a team be allowed to move the ball up on a timeout? I know the NBE does it, but even there it really makes no sense at all.

The NBA and FIBA have the rule, so if you really think about it, high school and college are in the minority. I think if NFHS surveyed coaches and ADs on a possible rule change to reflect the NBA and FIBA rule, they'd get a good majority approval on the change.

bob jenkins

AllPurposeGamer wrote
You'll never get the people in this forum to agree to those rules changes...why you ask? Cause it'd be too much like the NBA.

I haven't seen a whole lot of complaining about the NBA rules (at least those listed in this thread). It's more about the game itself and perhaps the travelling rule.

Raymond

bob jenkins wrote
I haven't seen a whole lot of complaining about the NBA rules (at least those listed in this thread). It's more about the game itself and perhaps the travelling rule.

You mean the one that allows Paul Pierce to legally take 4 steps without dribbling?

Rich

AllPurposeGamer wrote
The NBA and FIBA have the rule, so if you really think about it, high school and college are in the minority. I think if NFHS surveyed coaches and ADs on a possible rule change to reflect the NBA and FIBA rule, they'd get a good majority approval on the change.

In this country, more games are played under NFHS and NCAA rules than any other. And quite frankly, I don't care what they play in other countries.

I don't see this changing anytime soon. The NFHS is loathe to make drastic changes to the rules and this change would be drastic.

APG

RichMSN wrote
In this country, more games are played under NFHS and NCAA rules than any other. And quite frankly, I don't care what they play in other countries.

I don't see this changing anytime soon. The NFHS is loathe to make drastic changes to the rules and this change would be drastic.

I know that...I just pointed that two major rules body have seen no problem with the rule.

As far as it being drastic, it'd be a very easy rule to implement in my opinion. A more drastic rule would be adding a restricted area for secondary defenders. We've seen the NBA, FIBA, and NCAA-M go to it. I don't know if NFHS will add it anytime soon. I'd much rather see a shot clock mandated.

Rich

AllPurposeGamer wrote
I know that...I just pointed that two major rules body have seen no problem with the rule.

As far as it being drastic, it'd be a very easy rule to implement in my opinion. A more drastic rule would be adding a restricted area for secondary defenders. We've seen the NBA, FIBA, and NCAA-M go to it. I don't know if NFHS will add it anytime soon. I'd much rather see a shot clock mandated.

We'll see none of those.

I'd prefer a shot clock. We had a team pull it out with 2 minutes left in the first and second quarter Thursday night. So we stood around for probably 3:30 of the game watching the clock run down.

APG

RichMSN wrote
We'll see none of those.

I'd prefer a shot clock. We had a team pull it out with 2 minutes left in the first and second quarter Thursday night. So we stood around for probably 3:30 of the game watching the clock run down.

Time will tell...I wouldn't mind seeing any of the changes. Don't mind the rules as it is now except for the lack of a mandated shot clock. Pulling it out with two minutes left and just holding it ain't playing basketball to me, but the rules makers didn't ask me. The closely guarded rule doesn't do enough because it's ridiculously easy for a competent point guard to break the 6 foot requirement.

Rich

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Time will tell...I wouldn't mind seeing any of the changes. Don't mind the rules as it is now except for the lack of a mandated shot clock. Pulling it out with two minutes left and just holding it ain't playing basketball to me, but the rules makers didn't ask me. The closely guarded rule doesn't do enough because it's ridiculously easy for a competent point guard to break the 6 foot requirement.

We had the lack of action rule when I started officiating. I hope they never, ever think of bringing that back.

I don't foresee mandatory shot clocks. Schools would have to pay for the clocks as well as an operator for all games. They won't even hire 3 officials at 80% of the schools / conferences around here -- the NFHS isn't going to be mandating a shot clock anytime soon, although I would expect them to put it in as a state association adoption at some point.

APG

RichMSN wrote
We had the lack of action rule when I started officiating. I hope they never, ever think of bringing that back.

I don't foresee mandatory shot clocks. Schools would have to pay for the clocks as well as an operator for all games. They won't even hire 3 officials at 80% of the schools / conferences around here -- the NFHS isn't going to be mandating a shot clock anytime soon, although I would expect them to put it in as a state association adoption at some point.

If they'd do it, they'd have to mandate by a certain time period...say five to seven years. I think that would be plenty of time for schools to add a shot clock. You're right about schools having to pay the shot clock operator and that's the only issue I'd see.

I agree we'll probably see it become allowed by NFHS by state adoption...much like instant replay during state tournaments, media timeouts, etc.

lmeadski

I'd prefer some type of sweat pants, a bit lighter material. Football made a great transition from the knickers to sweat type pants.

Raymond

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Time will tell...I wouldn't mind seeing any of the changes. Don't mind the rules as it is now except for the lack of a mandated shot clock. Pulling it out with two minutes left and just holding it ain't playing basketball to me, but the rules makers didn't ask me. The closely guarded rule doesn't do enough because it's ridiculously easy for a competent point guard to break the 6 foot requirement.

I want no parts of a shot clock in high school ball. The games will be 2 hours long with all the stoppages to correct mistakes by the operator.

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.

AllPurposeGamer wrote
If they'd do it, they'd have to mandate by a certain time period...say five to seven years. I think that would be plenty of time for schools to add a shot clock. You're right about schools having to pay the shot clock operator and that's the only issue I'd see.

I agree we'll probably see it become allowed by NFHS by state adoption...much like instant replay during state tournaments, media timeouts, etc.

chseagle

The games here are averaging about 75 minutes with both the boys & girls having a shot clock.

All it takes is knowledge of the rules involved & an attentive eye.

BadNewsRef wrote
I want no parts of a shot clock in high school ball. The games will be 2 hours long with all the stoppages to correct mistakes by the operator.

APG

BadNewsRef wrote
I want no parts of a shot clock in high school ball. The games will be 2 hours long with all the stoppages to correct mistakes by the operator.

There will be growing pains at first, but it seems like the states that do have the shot clock are doing just fine. As much as I don't want a two hour long high school game, I rather have that then a game where the ball is held for two minutes with no action. That to me ain't basketball.

26 Year Gap

BadNewsRef wrote
I want no parts of a shot clock in high school ball. The games will be 2 hours long with all the stoppages to correct mistakes by the operator.

I think it is largely the cost. I don't know what the cost is, but the upfront cost would be balked at by many administrators in times of shrinking budgets. I did a few games at Disney this summer that used the shot cock, and it was relatively easy to make the transition as an official. Except for a few times, I had a count going in the backcourt. Phasing in the cost of uniforms when white was mandated and giving 3 years to budget for them likely was less of a cost than the shot clocks would be.

« Previous Page Next Page »