We don't need no stinkin'.... part 2
 

OK guys. When I posted the first one about suggested rule changes, I didn't expect a bazillion pages on the terminology for intentional fouls. How about some other ideas for proposed rule changes?

I would like to make the game have two 16 minute halves instead of quarters. I think the game would have more flow and you would not have to worry about as many last second shot opportunities.

Peace

You have such a good grasp of the obvious, it is scary!

Wow, you got me. I will have to keep that in mind next time (this is usually what you Americans call sarcasm). :rolleyes:

Peace

But I need as much rest as possible. In fact, I would like to see 16 two-minute periods. Plus - it would give the person running the AP arrow a real workout. :p

Ditto, my Canadian friend! ;)

I just think the game flows better without the quarter break. I would not even have a problem if they added another timeout to compensate for the lost the minute break between quarters. I worked an AAU Tournament about 2 weeks ago and the games did not really take that much longer with two halves and with a stop clock.

Peace

I agree the 2 halves work better. Seems like all summer league stuff has gone to that in some form -- either 16 minute full clock rules, 20 minute running clock, or some combination (e.g. running after a point spread). I guess mandate 12 minute for jr. high, but many of them would run 16 anyway.

The other change I want to see (and have been hissed at before for suggesting it) is to eliminate the 1 and 1, go to 2 shots on the 7th foul, and 2 shots and the ball on the tenth foul. Since nobody makes their free throws anymore and coaches know it, there's no real penalty for fouling. Yeah, I know, practice CAN remedy that, but it never does. This past year's NCAA tournament was case and point about how illiterate in free throw shooting supposedly good basketball players are today.

Hinted at above: a 20 or 25 point spread automatic running clock in the second half. Clock stops for timeouts only and we can debate whether to return it to regulation when spread is narrowed.

Others:

-- expand the coaching box to include the entire bench but nothing more;
-- allow the non-shooters in the lane on a free throw release;
-- consider a new punishment called "suspensions" which would put a player on the bench for the rest of the half -- sort of a mini-ejection; this will take some thought to word right and get consistent;
-- consider mandating 3 official crews for ALL high school games, including freshman and JV. The schools CAN afford it, but will have to be dragged to doing it, so the Fed can take the blame. The 2 official crew in football, used extensively in the 50s and 60s, has pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur.

I will disagree with you on this one. For one I see a lot of teams able to hit FTs. Actually the team that can do it the best usually wins. Save the giving back the ball for the big fouls like intentional, flagrant and Ts.

I think 20-25 points is too small in my opinion. I also think if you take away the quarters, the game will not be hampered as much in this area.

I have no problem with these two changes if they were to be made.


Not sure where you are going with this.


I do not think this would go over well. Many schools use the "we have no money" explanation. Now I would love to see 3 person used at all levels, but it is not going to happen through the National Federation. Also they still use 2 officials for many lower level football games where I live. And the reason is because the claim is, "we do not have the money." Now I see that as BS but you still see many games worked this way. Not sure how people do it and I see this as an entirely stupid way to officiate a game. Not much different than expecting one official to work basketball game.

Peace

This was also on the list this year and was voted down.

You obviously do not work in education or in areas with a lot of smaller schools. There are many schools in our area that really can't afford 3 man crews. There are a couple that on the verge of closing down completely. I would really hate to see money earmarked for the education of all students being pulled into the fund to pay for 3 man crews instead of 2 man crews in BB.

However - I personally prefer the 3 man crew both for college and varsity HS - and have even worked the 3 man crew for the fee of 2 man crew at HS and MS levels. We have done this on holiday tournaments etc and pre-season scrimages in part to give less experienced officials a chance to familiarize themselves and get some practice with the 3 man crew after attending a camp. I agree that 3 man crews would be great and I don't know what the solution is - but some schools really can't afford this one.

Just in the paper here today, our girl's athletic union (yes, we have 2 separate state associations :( ) decided that they will make their coaches sit on the bench like we do on the boy's side. I'm not a fan of having them seated, but I guess I don't make that decision.

I don't agree with this. Those small schools pack their gyms every night during basketball season. Paying another official for their home games isn't going to cause them to close their doors. If they want quality games with quality officiating, they need to find the money for 3 man crews.

I think if we wanted we could hijack this discussion on crash the board by talking about education funding.

Lets do some math at high school...figure 13 home games a season for 4 teams below varsity (13 x 4 = 52). Using the local fees paid to sub-varsity official ($30) the school has to pay a whopping $1,560 more a year to use three officials. If that is going to force a school to close down or pull money away from educating students the school should strongly consider dropping all athletics...look at the money they could use for education!

Well that does not mean they will not change their mind or it does not mean newer committee members might think this is a good idea. Time will tell.

Peace