I dont know if you guys have any input on rules or get to make any suggestions, but here is one rule IMO that needs to be looked at.

The timeout rule.... lets say player A on team A is chasing a ball that is going out of bounds off of his team. Player A jumps in the air and catches the ball while going out of bounds in the air he calls time out. He is awarded the time out and Team A keeps the ball.

I think this is one rule that should be changed where as posession has to be established with a foot inbounds to call timeout.....What do you think?

The NBA has changed this rule to basibcally what you suggest. I don't really have a problem with it. College and high school teams get fewer time-outs than pro teams do. If a coach is willing to allow a player to burn that TO, then it's his perogoative, IMHO. Quite honestly, I don't see it happen that often. Until the coaches complain about it, it probably won't happen.

I have seen this happen a lot here lately and it has been my team that has been doing it. So really Im cutting my own throat by suggesting this. Its happened in almost every game I have seen this year and today was no different.

The reason I would like to see this changed is because it usually negates a good defensive play or a bad offensive play. It just seems to go against the rules of having posession of the basketball.

I think the rule is fine. Why would you punish a team for hustle and quick thinking? What would happen if a player hustled for a ball going out of bounds tossed it back to a teammate? You wouldn't penalize him for that? What if a player with possession was in the air and threw it off an opponent and it went OOB? You wouldn't penalize them for that. As BktBallRef stated, If their coach allows them to burn a time out in that situation, let them.

HogFan - The reason the time-out can be called has to do with a rules definition of "Player Location" which basicly states that the location of a player is determined by where the player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.

So even though a player is airborne and clearly out of bounds we only care where his feet were when he left the floor.

That's why I like FIBA - no timeouts from the floor

I see absolutely no reason to change this rule. As stated above, there are similar situations that no one ever mentions. What about the player on the floor with the ball who is about to get tied up, requesting a timeout? Are we to judge that we shouldn't grant a timeout if we infer the player is about to commit a turnover or get tied up?

Let's say they change the rule and a player is in the air on his way OOB (you think), requests the TO and you don't give it to him and he then, somehow, lands inbounds. Is this any different than a player who catches the ball in the air in the middle of the court and requests one while airborne?

What about a player who is one second away from a five second inbound violation? Actually, this used to be a rule a long time ago and was changed, thank goodness.

In order to be consistent in the rule, you'd have to change the rule so it covered every possible situation in which it appears a player is about to commit a turnover. That would be not only impossible to do, but ridiculous.

Actually - the defining point for me is if a player is willing to accept burning a timeout to avoid a turnover, that's his decision.

Now - if you really want to change an inequitable rule, let's talk once again about changing the loss of possession penalty on technical fouls. Oh wait - I've been advocating for this for many years and it's still there. Never mind.

I'm willing to bet that it's coming, Mark. As I'm sure you know, NCAA has gone to this rule. It makes sense and it works well, in my opinion. I think it will come.

Chuck

one rule i would like to see dissolve is the tech for improper numbers inthe scorebook. to start the game off with 2 shots and the ball, to me is ridiculous. those numbers have nothing to do with the actual game(on court). sometimes people make mistakess when processing the info and the penalty is significant. but this is my personal opinion.

Scrap the AP - this is the most ridiculous rule I have ever heard of. It doesn't award good defence and is the only part of the rules where skill has absoutely nothing to do with who gets the ball.

This is what I have been saying for years. FIBA and NBA/WNBA do it correctly. Jump balls for all held ball and situations where a jump ball is required.

Mark, it is not often that you and I agree - but on this one I certainly do. The AP is one of the main reasons that I am glad that I don't referee in the USA. (plus the fact that it is too far to travel:))

i agree scrap it for mens ball(highschool) but thank God for the arrow in womens.

I disagree. Keep the AP, especially in women's ball. I have a bad rotator cuff and don't want to be tossing the ball up 30 or 40 times a game. Let's scrap the jump ball all together. Let's start the game and every extra period with a coin toss or rock, paper and scissors.

Pleaseeeeeeee tell me you're being sarcastic - the rules should change because you have an injury that hinders your ability to do the job properly...maybe it's time to retire?

I referee FIBA, at all levels from Under 12 girls, up to and including State League Mens (2 divisions under our pro-league). It is very rare for me to have a game with more than a dozen jump balls (in the kiddy leagues) and maybe 4 in the senior comps. So that means during any one game I will, on average administer between 2 and 8 jump balls. If that's too hard...see above comment.

Oz Referee:

Try doing a freshman girls (9th grade for us) game between 2 teams that have virtually no talent and see how many "jump ball" calls you have. I vote to keep the posession arrow. This also happens a lot in rec ball. This past Saturday, I did a 3-game set with 12 year old girls and my partner and I must have had 10-12 jump balls in one of the games! And there were no quick whistles...we let them "tug" a bit. Just happened to be a couple of teams (I guess) that could't seem to do anything but "jump ball".

I agree 100%. I have no prob with this rule.

Larks

Dblref -

I do know what it is like, and believe me I hate these games as much as the next guy (or girl). My point is that the AP rule is unfair because it doesn't reward good defence. It is basically a rule that has been devised to make referee's live easier - mainly because so many of them can't throw a ball straight up in the air!

Do they not have sarcastic humor down under? :(

Priceless. Don't you hate it when that happensss. :)

i wondered who would be the first to catch it.
cant wait to see you at c2c again brad.

Tony,
Just thought I'd shout out to a fellow Coast to Coaster!
It's been a couple of years since I've been though.
We have a young buck in our Association that is headed to
C2C this year. When it gets closer, I'll give you his name.:cool:
Drake

I was being sarcastic Oz. sorry for not using the emoticon. But I do like the AP especially for girls ball. All those jump balls would disrupt the flow of the game. AP arrow is quick and easy. In many of the AP situations I encounter it is not because of good defense(defence as you put it), it is because of sloppy play. Maybe we should just give all held balls that are the result of good defense to the defensive team and all the rest we'll use the AP arrow.

No probs dave, at first I thought you were, but then after re-reading your post I though you must have been serious. My appologies.

But I still hate the concept of the AP (although I have never ref'd it)

In June 1999, I tossed the jump ball to start a summer league game. When I tossed (I toss two handed) the ball I heniated two discs in my neck and my right arm was paralyzed for ten days. The only physical activity I was allowed for five months was physical therapy and walking.

And I still have an intense dislike for the Alternationg Possession Procedure. Dump the AP and bring back the jump ball.

I guess this was just my personal opinion on this rule and I don't think Im alone on it. I guess arguments can be made for both sides in this case.

Burning timeouts, hustle, but to me, it just seems like it goes against the grain on being a true posession of the basketball.

I for one, think there are too many timeouts in basketball these days anyway. With television and everything it seems like there are at least 10 timeouts or more per half. Thirty second timeouts seem to be more like a minute and a half, and full timeouts seem to be more like 3-5 minutes. I guess if the timeouts were reduced and they were at a premium, I wouldnt have as much of a problem with the rule.

Thirty second TO's are 30 seconds every time I've seen games.

Full timeouts may be longer, depending on the media agreement.

BTW, do you know how long a "full" timeout is (in a non-covered game)?

FULL time out - 50 seconds (at least in FIBA) coaches think that it is 60 seconds, but it is 50 for the time out and 10 to get on the court.

Quote:

BTW, do you know how long a "full" timeout is (in a non-covered game)?

I believe in non-media covered games it is 75 seconds and in media covered games it is in the media agreement.

I am going to a game tonight and I will let you know how long the timeouts run if I can remember to time it myself.

All right!

We got HogFan to answer one correctly!