The Official Forum - Rule Change Proposals

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Rule Change Proposals (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/31259-rule-change-proposals.html)

Old School

Mon Feb 05, 2007 07:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Just thought I'd give you a progress report. I had the opportunity to work with a member of the FED rules committee last weekend. We worked a college game together. I gave him the list that we'd compiled and he commented on a few of the proposals.

3) Expand definition of team control to include holding the ball OOB for a throw-in.

As we know, the FED doesn't like to make big exceptions or changes to long-standing rules. And that's what this one would require. He doesn't see much chance for this one.
Chuck, we absolutely need to get this one changed. To me, this is not a big change, but a very small one. Once I give the ball to the inbounder, the team has control or should have control. I think this is a very easy one to change and the coaches would support it.

5) TO shall not be granted to a head coach unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

This would be like "putting the genie back in the bottle", according to him. Just not going to happen, until all the members of the committee are officials. The coaches like it too much. It's never going away.
What a shame, this would make it easier for us to administrator. This is also a problem waiting to happen. I notice this year they have given the NBA coaches the ability to call TO's, in particular instances of course. Probably had something to do with the Dallas Miami playoff situation last year.

15) Prohibit substitutions after the final FT of a multiple throw.

Another one that has been discussed, but the coaches like it too much. It's a tactic that the coaches will not give up. It's a great tactic, I don't think it should change either.

16) Change the blarge procedure to eliminate the double foul penalty.

He was unaware of the women's NCAA procedure. When I explained it, he asked, "What if they can't agree whose call it was?" So I'm not sure if that one will fly either, although I personally hope it does. I'm not sure I agree with the women's procedure. How do you determine which one occurred first, unfairly penalizing one of the teams? I personally wouldn't want something like this coming down to a referee's decision which could decide the game.

I thought there where some that where more important then these. I support #3, let's hope for that one.

Mark Padgett

Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:19pm

I wonder what that guy would have thought about my #1 proposed rule change: coaches must remain seated for the entire game - in the parking lot. ;)

swkansasref33

Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Any penalty in football can be declined,

Not true at all my friend. Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

Snake~eyes

Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Not true at all my friend. Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

Wrong - simply not true. ANY penalty can be declined, this is a football fundamental. Often times we don't ask the team since its automatic that they will accept it but the team does have the option to decline it. Look it up.

Texas Aggie

Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:35am

Quote:

Any penalty on the offense before the ball is snapped i.e. False Start, Delay of Game, is an AUTOMATIC walk off, thus the defense cannot decline the penalty

Someone needs to read the rule book before commenting on something in it!

steve33

Wed Feb 07, 2007 04:17pm

Something that I've always wanted to see be adopted is the FIBA rules on Basket Interference. Where once the ball makes contact with the rim, all bets are off.

eg-italy

Wed Feb 07, 2007 04:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve33

Something that I've always wanted to see be adopted is the FIBA rules on Basket Interference. Where once the ball makes contact with the rim, all bets are off.

You must be joking:) IMHO it's one of the dumbest thing they made. Reaching within the basket and touching the ball after it has hit the ring is a simple violation, not BI :eek: Yes, that's the rule. :mad:

Ciao

mcdanrd

Wed Feb 07, 2007 06:11pm

Rule 3 Section 5

Eyeglasses are permitted but must be held securely in place with a band designed soley for this purpose. The band must attach to each earpiece of the eyeglasses and fit snuggly around the back of the head.

26 Year Gap

Wed Feb 07, 2007 06:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdanrd

Sorta like contact cement?;)

JCurrie

Thu Feb 08, 2007 01:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Change the Mechanics in 2 man officials. Have the official that reports the foul stay at table side. Thus making it similar with 3 man mechanics.
Not all varsity games in St. Louis, MO use 3 officials. There have been times that my partner, in a 2 man game, has stayed at table side after reporting the foul. I just made my adjustment in administering the Free Throw and we chatted about this proceedure after the game.

That is the international mechanic. With 2 officials, the calling official goes trail when play is staying in the front court. When play is going the other way, the calling official always becomes the new lead.

SMEngmann

Thu Feb 08, 2007 06:27am

My rule change suggestions:

1) Adopt a shot clock in all states

2) Stop clock on all made baskets in the last minute of the game (or at the very least, the last 10 seconds of the 4th quarter/OT)

rationale: teams should not be able to "run out the clock." Very difficult play to officiate in terms of determining when the ball is "at the disposal" of the thrower in for the 5 second count.

3) Eliminate the intentional foul definition and replace with more specific definitions (flagrant fouls 1 and 2) as well as clear path foul and away from the play foul.

rationale: if FED is gonna allow fouling as a legitimate strategy, they cannot have "intentional foul" in the rulebook. Adding these other definitions breaks down the types of current "intentional fouls" and thus makes them easier to officiate. Plus, as an added bonus, it eliminates the argument "he was going for the ball" from the coach's lexicon.

4) Point of Interruption on technicals

5) Change the penalty for slapping the backboard to basket interference when the ball is in the cylinder.

6) Expand the coaches box from 28 foot mark to endline, or eliminate it entirely

rationale: the way the currently adopted box is makes it too difficult for most officials to manage the bench. Let the coach use the sideline to coach his team, if he can't handle that, he should have no box, eliminate the half measures.

eg-italy

Thu Feb 08, 2007 07:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

My rule change suggestions:
...
3) Eliminate the intentional foul definition and replace with more specific definitions (flagrant fouls 1 and 2) as well as clear path foul and away from the play foul.
...
6) Expand the coaches box from 28 foot mark to endline, or eliminate it entirely

rationale: the way the currently adopted box is makes it too difficult for most officials to manage the bench. Let the coach use the sideline to coach his team, if he can't handle that, he should have no box, eliminate the half measures.

FIBA did #3: we now call them "unsportsmanlike fouls"; maybe the name is terrible, but it does not convey any idea of "intentionality", which is not a criterion to call them, as any "stop clock foul" could be deemed intentional.

#6: We have the coaching box from the endline to 5 meters (16' 5"; aren't metric measures simpler?:)) from the division line. No particular problem. And no, after a T the coach doesn't lose any coaching box privilege.

mj	Thu Feb 08, 2007 09:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdanrd

Am I missing something? My book has nothing about eyeglasses in this part.

Scrapper1

Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mj

Am I missing something? My book has nothing about eyeglasses in this part.

I think that's what would make it a rule change. :D

mj	Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think that's what would make it a rule change. :D

Alrighty then...

CoachP

Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:08pm

Free throws

What kind of chance is there to have FED adopt that the opponents of the free thrower can stand ON the 12" block (closest to the baseline) during a FT? (Same as NCAA)

And end all restrictions on the release?

eyezen

Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:22pm

Mine are:

Expand team control to include at disposal of throw-in OOB

Stop clock on made baskets during last minute of second half (see next one) and OT

Change to 16 minute halves

No timeout by head coach unless ball is dead

Have certified table crews

bob jenkins

Thu Feb 08, 2007 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachP

Approximately zero, imo. The rules have gone from "rim" to "release" back to "rim" in the past several years. And, FED is "happy" with the results from some study a couple of years ago about how meny rebounds each team gets. So, I think this would be a dead issue for at least a couple more years.

Texas Aggie

Thu Feb 08, 2007 01:54pm

Quote:

Let the coach use the sideline to coach his team, if he can't handle that, he should have no box, eliminate the half measures.

This logic was used when they adopted the coaching box in the '90s. It was said then that if Fed gave them some leeway to get up and move around a little, they wouldn't have any latitude to argue they should move around more. Obviously, many if not most coaches move around much more and create a problem for us in trying to manage it.

If we adopt the NCAA box, they'll be from end line to table and complain when we try to get them back in the box as they do now.

With that said, I think the box should be the length of the bench (set in distance) and no more.

blindzebra

Thu Feb 08, 2007 01:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Just thought I'd give you a progress report. I had the opportunity to work with a member of the FED rules committee last weekend. We worked a college game together. I gave him the list that we'd compiled and he commented on a few of the proposals.

3) Expand definition of team control to include holding the ball OOB for a throw-in.

As we know, the FED doesn't like to make big exceptions or changes to long-standing rules. And that's what this one would require. He doesn't see much chance for this one.

5) TO shall not be granted to a head coach unless the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

This would be like "putting the genie back in the bottle", according to him. Just not going to happen, until all the members of the committee are officials. The coaches like it too much. It's never going away.

6) Violation for the inbounder delaying his return to the court.

The rules committee actually wanted this as part of the rule change a couple years ago. But the FED itself didn't like it. Since it's a T for a player to delay his return during a normal play or after a TO, they thought it should also remain a T if he delays his return following a throw-in. They didn't like the idea of two different penalties for exactly the same infraction, just b/c they happen at different times. So I don't think this one will fly.

8) Add "gray shirt" to approved uniform for officials.

No support for it at all on the committee. In the past, they proposed it as a State Adoption, but the FED itself said that there are already enough State Adoptions and didn't want any more. This is also why you will never see the shot clock as a State Adoption. Either everyone is going to use it, or no one is.

14) Revise sweatband requirements.

Not going to happen.

15) Prohibit substitutions after the final FT of a multiple throw.

Another one that has been discussed, but the coaches like it too much. It's a tactic that the coaches will not give up.

16) Change the blarge procedure to eliminate the double foul penalty.

He was unaware of the women's NCAA procedure. When I explained it, he asked, "What if they can't agree whose call it was?" So I'm not sure if that one will fly either, although I personally hope it does.

The others, he didn't really comment on. Just thought I'd pass it along to everybody.

I really don't see adding the word inbounds to 3 seconds, closely guarded and 10 seconds backcourt is that major of a change for team control during a throw-in to take place.

chartrusepengui

Thu Feb 08, 2007 02:45pm

there already are a bunch of table crews that are certifiable!!!!!!!!

Mark Dexter

Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake~eyes

FWIW (and I know I'm coming into this late), the DISTANCE part of any penalty can be declined. (I.e., if you eject the visiting coach for two USC penalties, the home team can't say - 'nah, we want him to stay.')

Also, Chuck, I'm not sure if you've sent in the form yet, but I'd love to see the clock stopped after made baskets in the last minute of play.

5-8 would have to be changed to the following:

Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when:
ART. 1 . . . An official signals:
a. A foul.
b. A held ball.
c. A violation.

ART. 2 . . . An official stops play:
a. Because of an injury as in 3-3-5, 6.
b. To confer with the scorer or timer.
c. Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live.
d. For any other situations or any emergency.

ART. 3 . . . An official grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player (s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a susbstitute(s) is available and required.

ART. 4 . . . An official responds to the scorer's signal to grant a coach's request that a correctable error, as in 2-10, or a timing, scoring or alternating-posession mistake be prevented or rectified. The appeal to the official shall be presented at the scorer's table where a coach of each team may be present.

ART. 5 . . . After a made basket:
a. If the clock displays tenths of a second, when 59.9 seconds or less remains in the fourth quarter or in any overtime period.
b. If the clock does not display tenths of a second, when 59 seconds or less remains in the fourth quarter or in any overtime period.

In addition, 2-12-6 would have to be modified:

ART. 6 . . . Stop the clock at the expiration of time for each quarter or extra period, ---and--- when an official signals time-out, as in 5-8-1 through 5-8-4 and when a basket is scored in the last minute of the fourth quarter or any overtime period, as in 5-8-5. For an intermission or charged time-out, start the stopwatch and signal the referee as outlined in Article 5.

I would also want to come up with a proposal for foul-buzzer-shot, but I want to know that you're still accepting applications before typing up that one. :p

Camron Rust

Sun Mar 11, 2007 01:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Also, Chuck, I'm not sure if you've sent in the form yet, but I'd love to see the clock stopped after made baskets in the last minute of play.

5-8 would have to be changed to the following:
....

I DISAGREE!!!

All we need is to have several more opportunities for amateur clock operators to mess up the clock. There is no existing problem so why change it (and just because the NBA and NCAA do it is not sufficient justification). A team has the ability to stop the clock at this point if they've not burned all their timeouts. If the have none left, too bad...that's the consequences.

Camron Rust

Sun Mar 11, 2007 01:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Also, Chuck, I'm not sure if you've sent in the form yet, but I'd love to see the clock stopped after made baskets in the last minute of play.

5-8 would have to be changed to the following:

ART. 5 . . . After a made basket:
a. If the clock displays tenths of a second, when 59.9 seconds or less remains in the fourth quarter or in any overtime period.
b. If the clock does not display tenths of a second, when 59 seconds or less remains in the fourth quarter or in any overtime period.
:p

Now, if such a thing did go through, this could be so much simpler...

After a made basket when less than 60 seconds remains in the 4th quarter or overtime.

No need to differentiate between clock equipment.

comical

Sun Mar 11, 2007 03:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

Since NFHS is big on administrative rule changes, I have one:

2-11-1-Note: It is <s>recommended</s> required the team member numbers be submitted and entered into the official scorebook in numerical order.

To address a pet peeve of mine. :D

I understand the reasoning behind this proposed change. However, my question would be what if there was an unusually large roster and there were more names than spaces available? The team for which I keep the book (at the Division III level) had 16 players on its roster this season (with 15 spaces for each team per game in the book). One visiting team this year had 19 players on the squad. Maybe it's different in high school and there is a cap on the number of players. In my experience at the college level, however, strictly enforcing this would be a problem. If there wasn't some flexibility, it would be difficult to keep track of fouls and points if, for example, #50 and #55 were squeezed into the same space if each played a significant number of minutes. Invariably (at least in most games) if there is a large number of players, there are several players that won't play. I would fit the numbers and names of those players into the same space and would forget about putting the roster in numerical order.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44pm.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1