As I said, the fairness issue is very minor, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. There's nothing unfair, as Chuck pointed out, about running out of time. The players know how much time is left, they're not getting screwed, unless you have actually seen someone be able to "catch and shoot" in less than .2 seconds.
My guess is that a fair amount of schools would have to incur expense in order to standardize the horns.
As for 3-point shots and dunking. Allowing the 3 point shot was not nearly so drastic a rule change. Not even in the same ball park. Allowing dunking was more along the lines of removing an unnecessary rule. What purpose did it serve to forbid it?
Sorry, but the rule just doesn't need changed. You're talking about a fundamental change in the timing of a game, forcing the officials to keep track of more information. The benefits would be negligible (how many games will this actually affect) and the implimentation would be too cumbersome.
One more problem. Are all shots beyond half-court worth 4 points, throughout the game? Or just the ones shot during the buzzer? Now, you penalize a player for shooting too soon.
SNAQWELLS
Honestly, it's too convoluted to impliment.
|