Guarding:

A better definition of path. As it is now, if taken literally, a defender would need to run around a retreating dribbler and defend a boundary.

Closely guarded:

Screens and the count.

Beginning and continuing a visual count on a player being guarded in the lane who leaves prior to 3 seconds.

Thrown ball behind the 3 point line:

As written now, any ball thrown from behind the 3 point line that is legally touched by a defender counts 3. The intent of the rule is for a challenge at the point of release and the ball being touched on the way UP counting 3, however, as written a shot could come down well short of the goal...not falling under goaltending or BI...bounce off of a defender and go into the basket resulting in 3 points.

Timing errors:

Caused by an official's erroneous signal.

Minimum time coming off during a throw in. As written time cannot come off without definite knowledge, but you can have a throw-in, touching and OOB faster than an official can signal or the timer can react. This also falls in with fixing errors.

Causing a ball to go into the backcourt:

Our little brain-teaser about B2 deflecting a ball toward the BC that is touched by A, standing in the BC, BEFORE the ball has BC status. Did A's touching of the ball, with FC status, cause a simultaneous last to/first to touch?

I'm sure there are more, any thoughts?

I would like to see the penalty for all double/simultaneous fouls changed to 2 free throws and ball returned to point of interruption.

I'm not sure I see the problem here, unless I'm misreading the play. Isn't the NFHS rule as written clear that a try ends when it's certain to not be successfull? If so then your case would be 2 points, not 3, if I understand it.

BTW, this is a case play in the ncaa book under 4-66-1.

Yes, but the problem is that 5-2-1 says that any thrown ball (not necessarily a try) counts for 3 if it starts behind the arc and goes in the basket without touching a teammate of the thrower, an official or the floor.

So suppose A1 heaves a midcourt shot. It falls way short and bounces off B2's head (which is well below the ring). It then bounces up and into the basket. According to 5-2-1, this should count as 3 b/c it went in without touching the floor, a ref or another member of Team A.

But most of us think it should be 2 for the reasons you state. Unfortunately, the two rules contradict.

Thanks Chuck, I see.

Two free throws for who? :confused: Both teams?

Yes, but the problem is that 5-2-1 says that any thrown ball (not necessarily a try) counts for 3 if it starts behind the arc and goes in the basket without touching a teammate of the thrower, an official or the floor.

So suppose A1 heaves a midcourt shot. It falls way short and bounces off B2's head (which is well below the ring). It then bounces up and into the basket. According to 5-2-1, this should count as 3 b/c it went in without touching the floor, a ref or another member of Team A.

But most of us think it should be 2 for the reasons you state. Unfortunately, the two rules contradict. [/B][/QUOTE]Whatinthehell are you talking about? Three points?

Read 4.40.4SitB(b). It counts as 2 points.

Why 2 FTs? I can see just going to POI instead of AP. But I see no reason to shoot 2 FTs? Do you want both teams to shoot 2 FTs?

Whatinthehell are you talking about? Three points?

Read 4.40.4SitB(b). It counts as 2 points. [/B][/QUOTE]

You need to read 5.2.1.C because that one says it counts 3.;)

Read 4.40.4SitB(b). It counts as 2 points. [/B][/QUOTE]
I understand that, JR. That's why I said the rules contradict. 5-2-1 is completely unambiguous. A thrown ball that starts behind the arc is a 3 if it goes in without touching a ref, the floor, or a teammate.

Can you interpret that rule any other way for me? I don't think you can. So that gives a little problem, don't you think? 5-2-1 and 4.40.4B are both unambiguous and give directly contradictory results. That's why it's included in this thread about changes/clarifications. Either the rule needs to be re-written or the case play does.

I understand that, JR. That's why I said the rules contradict. 5-2-1 is completely unambiguous. A thrown ball that starts behind the arc is a 3 if it goes in without touching a ref, the floor, or a teammate.

Can you interpret that rule any other way for me? I don't think you can. So that gives a little problem, don't you think? 5-2-1 and 4.40.4B are both unambiguous and give directly contradictory results. That's why it's included in this thread about changes/clarifications. Either the rule needs to be re-written or the case play does. [/B][/QUOTE]Case book play 5.2.1SitC uses the words "legally touched". <b>"Legally"</b> is the key word. That means "on the way up". If it's legally touched on the way down, that means that the try has ended as per 4-40-4, and you can't score 3. I don't find it confusing personally. Just go with the purpose and intent of the rule.

Case book play 5.2.1SitC uses the words "legally touched". <b>"Legally"</b> is the key word. That means "on the way up". If it's legally touched on the way down, that means that the try has ended as per 4-40-4, and you can't score 3. I don't find it confusing personally. Just go with the purpose and intent of the rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR, did this thrown ball hit an official? The floor? A teammate? 5-2-1 says try or thrown ball, the problem still exists even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

JR, did this thrown ball hit an official? The floor? A teammate? 5-2-1 says try or thrown ball, the problem still exists even if you don't want to acknowledge it. [/B][/QUOTE]Naw, There's language in the book telling us when a try ends. Logically, the "throw" ends too when it doesn't have a chance to go in. That's good enough for me.

I think we need a clarification on throwins. When A1 releases the ball toward the court but B1 reaches across the boundary and touches the ball before it is over the court, is it supposed to be treated the same as if A1 was still holding the ball OOB, or do the restrictions end when the ball is released toward the court? Notice I specify toward the court.

I'd like to see time-out requests given back to the players. Hearing a "time-out," looking back to make sure it was the head coach, turning back to the play, and either a) a pass is in the air, or b) it's an interrupted dribble, or c) team b has stolen it, and now you can't grant the time-out, and now coach A is upset...make the players request the timeout...that way the coach can gripe at his players rather than the referee.