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

Many people don't agree who do not see how education is funded and how funding is constantly being cut back. I could really go off on a tangent on Ed funding BUT I do agree with OP that I would prefer 3 person crews but it's just not feasable where I am located. Each school sets own sub varsity fee schedule and conferences set varstiy fee schedule. Location and population are two other issues with gates etc. I am not sure where you are from but my sub varsity game fees range from $35 on the lowest end to $46.50 (ave. $41) for JV w/no mileage being paid. That is just for BB subvarsity and additional $1500 - $2500 increase. Other sports are also trying to get larger crews - FB, SB, BB etc. It just adds up and is hard to justify for AD's and Admin when the rest of the budget keeps getting cut.

I am an educator and I agree. Not having the money is a cop out at those small schools. They could find it if they had to. There's plenty of other places money is wasted.

Yeah, but I didn't want to get started on administrator salaries ...... :-)

I am also going to have to agree those that feel the "we do not have enough money" argument is very lame. Let us say you pay $60 per official and you sell tickets for $4 to get into the gym, all you have to do 15 people to pay for the extra official. Also considering the concessions and the booster club fund raisers, it is really not that much money in the bigger scheme of things. I will also say that many of the smaller communities do get more fans consistently. That does not mean it applies to everyone but in my state many schools have consolidated their sports programs with other schools that had over all funding problems. I agree that education should be the first priority of every school, but an extra $400 to $600 is not going to crash most schools in a sport like basketball that in many parts of the country gets a lot of fans. At the very least these schools should not complain the officiating is bad. If officiating shortage is a bad thing, then hiring a 3rd official for games is not going to hurt those numbers because you will get officials to stay in longer and you can groom younger officials to become acclimated to a system that will keep them in longer as well.

Let us keep this in mind. A junior college program pays their officials double of what many HS pay and they in many cased do not get 1/3 of the fans many HS get. Somehow they survive. ;)

Peace

I officiate in a very rural area. I wish that the stands would be filled as you guys are saying. That would be great. Here's hopin' that they do find a way to get the cash.

A question - would any of you be willing to take a partial cut in fees to assist in this? It has been brought up in association meeting here for discussion - some heated.

Are the AD and coaches ready and willing to take a similar percentage pay cut?

We have enough problems recruiting and keeping officials. Cutting wages sureasheck isn't one way out of those problems.

Most of the officiating that I did early in my career was as rural as you can get. Many of the towns would not have 500 people in them and the crowds were packed most of the time.

BTW, when the administrators are willing to take a pay cut, so will I. Unless these schools cut half the fee you are not saving that much money in the first place. Hell, it is not me complaining that the officials did not cover a play. BTW, I live in a state where all our varsity games are 3 Person so I do not have to worry about this at this point.

Peace

I would.

That said, I'm from CT where varsity game fees are just shy of $80/ref. Even if they split the 2-person fees 3 ways, it wouldn't be that bad.

If I were in a state where pay was $40-50 for each ref at a varsity game, I would likely reconsider my position.

This is just a little bit condescending. Many people disagree who DO know how education is funded and how funding is being cut back.

Sorry to crush your feelings...... hope I didn't destroy your self-esteem .... but then again, it's difficult to find very many comments on this forum that are not condescending.

As in....anyone who does not agree with you is wrong?

not wrong - it just was not my intention to have my "condescending" words crush anyone. I never stated that no one knew how education is funded. By that - I mean the majority of people do not know how funding formulas work and that each district/school does not receive equal funding - even equal per pupil funding - and that these formulas are different from state to state. It was not my intent to condenscendingly imply that people do not know that the funding originates with taxes. It was more with what happens after the taxes are collected and monies are being dispursed.

Don't worry, my feelings aren't crushed and my self-esteem isn't affected. Neither is so fragile as to be susceptible to condescention from someone I don't know personally.

I was just pointing out two things.

1. Many who disagree with you are informed in the matter.
2. Implying that those who disagree with you aren't informed is a bit condescending and not at all convincing.

Not necessarily in that order.

On what statistics are you basing the above conclusions on?

I'm kinda interested in what the exact majority figure is. Is it 51% of the people that don't understand what you're talking about, or is it 99%?

Let us also put this in perspective. Some schools pay people that hardly do anything. I have worked football games where the chain crew working only the varsity game gets more money than the officials working both games (varsity and JV/sophomore). If schools stop trying to pay people that would do the job for next to nothing, then you might have more money for officials.

Peace

Can't let this pass....

Tell me, in your state, what amount needs to be spent per student in order to ensure a quality education? in other words, at that amount you can gaurantee the students will be prepared for either life or institutions of higher learning. If you cannot break it down between classroom and infrastructure feel free to give me the total amount.

those who educate are far too smart to guarentee all students will be prepared for life or institutions of hight learning at any price. We are not Gods. You can lead a horse to the water trough and fill it with the best water money can buy - but you cannot make them drink it in and fill themselves with it!

Does that mean that you're not gonna answer LarryS' question?

Btw, speaking of education from <b>"those who educate"</b> that are <b>"far too smart"</b>...
1) Don't you think students should be taught to begin sentences with a capital letter?
2) What are your feelings on far-too-smart educators being unable to spell words like "guarantee" and "higher"?
3) What's the point of leading a horse to the water trough and then filling <b>it</b> with water...i.e. "it" being that horse? Why would anybody try to make the horse drink <b>after</b> filling it?:confused:

Inquiring minds need to know.....:D

I understand your "confused" icon. There seem to be a lot of confused people here at times - myself included. I admit that I am not a good typist -especially on a laptop - however you don't have to be brilliant to understand that the "it" referred to the trough.

Happy Daze!

Yup, I do get confused real easily. That's probably because I'm not one of those <b>"far too smart"</b> people who educate others.

Gee, I'll also admit right up front that I can't answer the question that LarryS made to you above either. I was just hoping that you might educate me by answering it.

So....what's the answer?

I will try to ease your confusion - there is no way to GUARENTEE at any specific price. I made that point previously but perhaps not clear enough for you. I have answered your question but I cannot make you absorb the concept. The question, with its demand of a guarentee, itself is absurd.

That's Larry's question, Mr. Penguin. That's the one that has never been answered.

You implied that you knew this.....so......answer?

I are an edjikater two, and even tho I are two smart for Jerassick, I two think the monee issue is a farce...

The schools around here tried the "We can't afford it" routine, so our association compromised with them - we took a pay cut for the first three season, and after that they had to pay the whole amount...this coming season will be the first at the full amount. In talking with several AD's, they all pretty much agree that it was a bogus argument and monetarily they will be fine...that includes large schools and small schools. Schools budget $$ for athletics completely separate from the general ed. budget...that athletic money goes through the ASB or Activites Office and does not affect textbooks, teacher salaries, replacing lightbulbs, buying toiliet paer, etc...the $$ issue is a cop-out.

Larry's question can't be answered because having an answer would imply that there is a figure that would be "enough."

OK...eliminate the "guarentee"...what is the amount of funding that will allow educators in your state to provide a quality education to those that want it and or willing to work to that end? If you cannot give anyone a number, there is no way to convince anyone that adequate funding is not already taking place and being squandered.

It is the same as an employee constantly telling his boss "I need more money to operate effectively" but when the boss ask "How much more?" you just get a blank look on your face and say "I don't know, but what you are giving me now is not enough...give me more."

There always should be three officials. Otherwise, how will the home band playing The Three Stooges theme song (of course it's "Three Blind Mice") make any sense? Maybe they can play "Just the Two of Us", but I don't think it has quite the same effect.

I think that whenever we give out a pair of technicals, the band should play "Tea (T) for Two". :D