Rule Change Proposals

[blindzebra]

I want to eliminate the player control signal and just go with the fist, rename it an offensive control foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I have an idea though. Let's not have ANY changes next year. None at all, leave everything the way it was, only change the year and the committee members.

Now that would be new.

I can say with complete confidence that you will NEVER see that from the FED.

Rule book revenue. You knew that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I want to eliminate the player control signal and just go with the fist, rename it an offensive control foul.

Why not just call it a team control foul? A player control foul is really a subset of the team control foul (plus the airborne shooter case).

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

This week, I received a form for making rule change suggestions to the FED. Anybody can get the form and make a suggestion, I guess. But I happen to know a member of the rules committee, so he sends me the form directly. If you have a rule that you think should be changed and you would like me to send it on to the committee, here's your chance!

To be submitted, the change has to be submitted exactly as you think it should read in the book. Also, they want us to note exactly what part of the existing rule would have to be deleted, if necessary. Finally (enough hoops to jump through? ), they ask to note other rules and cases affected by the proposed change.

So it's not enough to say, "I'd like to see them go to the POI for a single technical foul". It needs to be written up precisely as it would appear in next year's rulebook.

I got a tremendous response last year when I asked for case book play proposals, so I hope that you have some ideas to pass along.

This would be good too:

Change the Blarge so that the officials have to come together and decided which happend first instead of reporting the double foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

HC may only call time out when the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

Make the gray shirt officially legal.

Add definitions of "reaching in" and "over the back." Everybody uses those terms, and no amount of whining about them here will ever change that. So give them a sensible definition and then we'll have some ammo to use next time the coach starts hollering about "he's reaching."

Make it a capital offense for anybody on the bench to yell "TRAVEL!" Ever. For any reason.

By state adoption, the "electronic fence" can be employed to keep coaches in their boxes while the clock is running.

Require scorekeepers and clock operators to be state trained and certified. When students are employed to run the clock/book, cell phones must be handed over to the referee, and no other students may sit within 25 feet of the score table.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

With the way the game is going, contact and rough play wise, I'd be in favor of changing the bonus situation and eliminating the 1 and 1. 2 shots at the 7th foul, and 2 shots plus the ball at the 10th foul.

Fed needs to drop the idea that fouling to stop the clock is a legitimate coaching strategy. I know its been around forever, but the thought of essentially saying "it is a legitimate coaching strategy to break the rules if you think it will give you an advantage, as long as you are willing to pay for it" is ridiculous.

Why? It's used in other sports. Baseball has the intentional walk; they don't give the batter two bases after the 8th walk. Football teams will often take a delay of game penalty to use more time and give their punter more space to kick.

[BillyMac]

1) Head coach may only call a time out when the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

2) Team control during a throw in. This would effect the no backcourt on a throw in exception.

3) No jump balls. Use a coin flip like in football or soccer, or decide to give it to the visitors, or home team first. After that, use the alternating possession arrow, including overtime.

[Texas Aggie]

Baseball has the intentional walk

I believe the baseball rule reads something like "a ball is a LEGAL pitch... (that is outside the strike zone; my paraphrase)." The key word there is LEGAL. A foul is not legal in basketball. Completely different issue. A walk is simply the result of 4 called balls. Further, a team can easily rectify a walk by either a caught stealing, pickoff, or double play. How can you rectify a play in basketball?

Football teams will often take a delay of game penalty to use more time and give their punter more space to kick.

Any penalty in football can be declined, thus the 5 yard walk off wouldn't happen. If the offense is ahead and gets a delay call, the rules state clearly that the Referee can start the clock on the snap, eliminating the ability of the offense to milk the clock in that way. Further, a 5 yard penalty isn't inherently advantageous.

Stopping the clock in basketball by committing a foul IS inherently advantageous. Other than a foul on an attempted 3 point shot, the most number of free throws the offense can get is 2. If a team can shoot 3's consistently, they can win the game by using rules infractions to their advantage. I realize this isn't anything new. Hell, I use to foul to stop the clock when I was first playing ball about 7 or so years old. My point is that the game has changed to the point where fouling is not only encouraged to stop the clock at the end of the game, but also to keep a team from shooting a three point shot to win. That is not what basketball is or should be about.

[Zoochy]

If you allow 'Team Control' on throw-in, then you have to restructure the wording to allow the exception for backcourt and allow a player to remain in the 'Painted Area' for more than 3 seconds.
I believe the NCAA has this incorporated into their rules.
I also would like automatic BI for slapping the backboard w/o contacting the ball.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

If you allow 'Team Control' on throw-in, then you have to restructure the wording to allow the exception for backcourt and allow a player to remain in the 'Painted Area' for more than 3 seconds.
I believe the NCAA has this incorporated into their rules.
I also would like automatic BI for slapping the backboard w/o contacting the ball.

All you need to do is add the word inbounds.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

When did they do that?

4 or 5 years ago the fed declared that the strategy of fouling to stop the clock was evil and must be stopped by calling these end of game touch fouls intentional. In fact, they came right out and said if a coach or team is yelling "foul 'em! foul 'em!!" you *must* call an intentional foul. Not being as dumb as they look, coaches started using a code word, shouting something like "red! red!! red!!!" instead of "foul 'em!!".

As I said this was so universally accepted that 2 years later (I think 2 years ago now?) they completely reversed their position and said in print that fouling to stop the clock at the end of the game is a respected strategy that is available to coaches but they must instruct their players to foul in the correct manner.

[BillyMac]

I seldom look at Forum usernames unless I want to reply to a specific quote or post in a thread, so it wasn't until today that I noticed the username of the gentleman posting this thread.

Welcome back ChuckElias. I can probably guess that you're only returning for this one thread so that you can get some input for your rule change form, and then you'll "disappear into the night". You've been missed. When you were posting on this Forum more frequently, in discussing this Forum with my colleagues, I often refered to you, in only my opinion, as the "unofficial interpreter" of the Forum.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Welcome back ChuckElias. ... When you were posting on this Forum more frequently, in discussing this Forum with my colleagues, I often refered to you, in only my opinion, as the "unofficial...."

Chuck is the "unofficial?" Is that anything like the "uncola?"

[MJT]

Could someone copy and paste the survey in this thread for us all to see? This has been done on the FB board and then we can get more discussion.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

in discussing this Forum with my colleagues, I often refered to you, in only my opinion, as the "unofficial interpreter" of the Forum.

I appreciate that, Bill, thanks. But to be honest, I've always thought Tony and/or Bob J held that position.