I don't have a survey. All I got was the proposal form. Once the FED gets all the proposals, then I think they put out a survey to see how much support there is for each proposal.

To everyone who has submitted a proposal, I thank you. But if you want me to include it on my form, I need to have the rule number that is being changed, and the exact language that you want the new rule to have. In other words, I need you to write out the rule exactly as you want it to appear in next year's book. Thanks!

You know, I almost threw in a pre-emptive "shut up" at the beginning of the thread, b/c I knew you or Dan would have some nice welcome for me. :p

It is clarified!
 

If they want a shooting foul then shoot it!!! If they pass then it is no shot... Seems pretty clear to me.:eek:

Welcome you? Why, have you been gone?

get rid of the 10 second count during the FT, I have never seen a violation called in 51 years.

WOW! You being officiating 51 years.;)

I am 51 years old. Have never seen this called in my entire life.

That's not exactly what I'm proposing.

Oh. I coulda sworn it was Texas Aggie that wrote this

Apologies if my browser is broken and it wasn't you after all.

If more of us called the intentional foul tighter and more often, I think the situation would change without a rule book change. I have seen the offensive player make a good play in avoiding the defender trying to foul him and the defender just reachinng and touching his shirt as he dribbles by. He should get the shots AND the ball is this type situation in my opinion. I found this hard to do with all my partner calling it the other way. Retired now so I can just watch.

Dan: instead of trying to be a smart ***, read again what we both wrote. I don't care what coaches say or what their instructions are. I'm interested in creating a rule set that, regardless of when or why fouls are committed, they are discouraged as a coaching strategy. It isn't strictly at the end of the game to stop the clock, but could also discourage the foul strategy that puts people on the line instead of allowing them, for example, a layup when the offensive player has clearly beaten the defender (assuming 10+ fouls).

That's why I said not "exactly", and I stand by that.

Fed doesn't want us to call it tighter because they specifically said that fouling to stop the clock is an acceptable strategy. Until they remove that language, its moot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that specific play (shirt grab) listed as one that should be called an intentional foul? Or, are you speaking of the idea officials use that when they are trying to foul, we are going to give it to them so as not to risk having a physical retaliation, fight, etc.? If the latter, then it still goes back to that damn quote in the rulebook, which in my opinion is 100% wrong.

2 man Mechanics
 

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.

As I said this very thing - declaring startegic fouls evil - was tried and it was rejected shortly after. Period. In fact when the fed changed back they acknowledged the legitimacy of strategic fouls.

If you have fed rule books that go back 4 or 5 years you would know this. Instead of concerning yourself with my tone you should go back and read them.

LOL......

Should be the final 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes though. Make it real to life.....

<b>COACH:</b> <i>"Hey you, sh!thead, gimme a technical foul."</i>
<b>OFFICIAL:</b> <i>"No way! You asked for one."</I>

Bad News. Bad, bad News.....:D

chuck good to have you back...if only for a brief time
 

Rule 9-9-1

as it reads: A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the front court.......

As I would like to see it read: A player from the team in control shall not be the first to touch a ball in the backcourt if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball int eh frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Reasoning is a discussion we had earlier in a meeting. By strict reading of the rule in its current wording, A1 shoots, the ball goes to the backcourt and is recovered by A2...this could be called a backcourt violation, if only by a strict reading of the rules...The ball had been in team control in the front court and A1 was the last to touch it in the front court, where A2 was the first to touch it in the backcourt. There is a case play that governs, and gives the correct interp for this situation, but by making the change it would lessen the possibility of a misapplication.