We don't need no stinkin'....part 3 (and last try)

[Mark Padgett]

OK, guys. So far we've used up two threads that were supposed to be about NF rule changes we'd like to see and we have a grand total of two suggestions - changing the terminology for intentional fouls and going to halves instead of quarters. Oh yeah - someone mentioned the changing the double bonus penalty, too. However, most of thread number two was taken up by a discussion of school funding. What's next - turning a discussion about dunking at half-time into one about the Iraq war?

Rule change ideas, please. Thank you.

[BillyMac]

Suggestion: Coaches cannot call time outs during a live ball or while the clock is running. One of my toughest calls is watching a dribbler cross the division line, get trapped against the back court line and the sideline, look for fouls, travel, out of bounds, etc., hear "Time out" from the bench area, and check to see if it's the head coach of the team that is allowed to call timeout in that situation. It's giving me a headache just typing up the situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Suggestion: Coaches cannot call time outs during a live ball or while the clock is running.

It should request a timeout. Only officials can call a timeout.

I want to save Mark the time.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It should request a timeout. Only officials can call a timeout.

I want to save Mark the time.

Peace

Thanks. I appreciate the help. Us Chicago guys have to stick together, besides - the meds have me really sleepy right now.

Here's an idea for a rule change. Once the ball has progressed into the front court and there is a subsequent throw-in for the offensive team, that team cannot inbound into the backcourt. What do you guys think?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Thanks. I appreciate the help. Us Chicago guys have to stick together, besides - the meds have me really sleepy right now.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Here's an idea for a rule change. Once the ball has progressed into the front court and there is a subsequent throw-in for the offensive team, that team cannot inbound into the backcourt. What do you guys think?

I think that would add to violations and likely more conflict about the rule. Also HS players are not always as coordinated and you would have some violations that might just take place because of poor execution. I do not see a purpose for such a rule.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Thanks. I appreciate the help. Us Chicago guys have to stick together, besides - the meds have me really sleepy right now.

Here's an idea for a rule change. Once the ball has progressed into the front court and there is a subsequent throw-in for the offensive team, that team cannot inbound into the backcourt. What do you guys think?

I think I understand your thinking on that one, but I think it would entail too many tweaks to the rules. Would OOB now be considered part of the front court? Or would we need to add exceptions to the back court rule? What if, while team A has the ball in their frontcourt, the ball is deflected by the defense and goes OOB along a backcourt sideline - would the throw-in only be allowed back into the front court?

Besides, I'm too old - I dislike change.

Now, getting back to that troop funding bill...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think I understand your thinking on that one, but I think it would entail too many tweaks to the rules. Would OOB now be considered part of the front court? Or would we need to add exceptions to the back court rule? What if, while team A has the ball in their frontcourt, the ball is deflected by the defense and goes OOB along a backcourt sideline - would the throw-in only be allowed back into the front court?

Besides, I'm too old - I dislike change.

Now, getting back to that troop funding bill...

My biggest question is why bother? Nothing is broken with it the way it is.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It should request a timeout. Only officials can call a timeout.

I want to save Mark the time.

Peace

I know some coaches deserve this label, but not all.

I would prefer only the players be allowed to request a TO during a live ball, but I believe that was voted down by the committee this year. Hopefully they will bring it up again next year.

Now, about that Iraq war...

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It should request a timeout. Only officials can call a timeout.

I want to save Mark the time.

Peace

Only officials may grant a timeout.

If we're gonna get it right, let's get it right.

[Junker]

I like the idea of keeping the 10 second count after a time out, but this would be difficult to keep track of, especially in states where a shot clock is not used. I guess my way of thinking is if a coach wants to waste a TO on one possession because of a potential backcourt violation, let them waste it.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Junker

I guess my way of thinking is if a coach wants to waste a TO on one possession because of a potential backcourt violation, let them waste it.

I've always questioned the intelligence of calling time-outs in situations like this...the one that really gets me is in the first quarter, kids are scrambling for a loose ball, dive on the floor, one kid grabs the ball and then "requests" time-out before he/she can be tied up - and the arrow is in their favor. I really don't get wasting that time-out...

And the rule change I would like to see is going to POI after a tecnical foul - not going to half-court. No real reason why - I just like it better...

[Junker]

I have another idea, how about limiting the number of coaches on the bench. I work one school that has about as many assistants as they have players. The adults get to complaining about things to each other, and the next thing you know, we're whacking either them or the HC. I can see having a HC and AC, but beyond that, why not have trainers and that's it for adults on the bench?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I've always questioned the intelligence of calling time-outs in situations like this...the one that really gets me is in the first quarter, kids are scrambling for a loose ball, dive on the floor, one kid grabs the ball and then "requests" time-out before he/she can be tied up - and the arrow is in their favor. I really don't get wasting that time-out...

I do not think those timeouts are requested with full understanding of the arrow. I also do not think that is it just a fear of being tied up. I think there is a fear to lose the ball. Possessions mean a lot and if you can save them by calling a timeout I think that is an honorable strategy.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think those timeouts are requested with full understanding of the arrow. I also do not think that is it just a fear of being tied up. I think there is a fear to lose the ball. Possessions mean a lot and if you can save them by calling a timeout I think that is an honorable strategy.

Peace

Yeah, I get that...but in the first quarter??? I think that time-out would probably be handier in the closing minutes than that one possession in the first quarter...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yeah, I get that...but in the first quarter??? I think that time-out would probably be handier in the closing minutes than that one possession in the first quarter...

Using timeouts only in the closing minutes are not going to guarantee you a win. If I turn the ball over just 5 times early in a game, that could be 10 points (15 points at the most) which can change the momentum of an entire game. So calling a timeout early might help save the game if used properly.

Peace