Rule change?

[Mark Padgett]

We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

[Adam]

I've got two rules I want changed:
1. Take away the ability of coaches to request timeout from the bench.
2. Flip the arrow as soon as the thrower is handed the ball.

Now, because of your arbitrary decision that I can only change one rule, I'm going with the coach calling timeout. I think it will have greater impact on the game since I really can't remember a time when the AP throwin wasn't completed due to a foul or defensive violation.

Of course, as Bob is always quick to point out, the coaches will probably never lose this rule, so my choice isn't realistic.

If I had to choose one that is both reasonably possible and will have an impact: Move the players up one spot on free throws.

[BillyMac]

Easy: Change the time out rule back to what it was in the olden days, allowing only the players on the court to request a time out. The newer rule, allowing coaches to call time out, forces us to turn our attention away from the players, especially when coaches are calling time outs to avoid a turnover, like when their players are trapped, and likely to travel, or get a five second violation, meanwhile we're looking at pivot feet, possibly counting five seconds, and watching for fouls by either the defense, or the offense, and then hear "someone" yelling "time out" behind our backs.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

You cannot use the entire court the whole time because you still are required within 10 seconds to advance into the frontcourt.

[CoachP]

NFHS. Change the lower "block" on the free throw lane to a "dash". Or allow player closest to endline to stand on the current block...why such a big space for one spot?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by CoachP

NFHS. Change the lower "block" on the free throw lane to a "dash". Or allow player closest to endline to stand on the current block...why such a big space for one spot?

If we shut down the lower block like NCAA, then I would want to see lane restrictions lifted on release.

[26 Year Gap]

With more and more players inbounding under their basket and hanging out before going onto the court, I would like to see the penalty reduced to a violation from a technical. This was discussed at the last rules confab and will come up again this spring. They would have to make this an exception so that the other delays returning to the court keep the same penalty. This is why the change was not made this year. They did not want an exception.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by CoachP

You cannot use the entire court the whole time because you still are required within 10 seconds to advance into the frontcourt.

Not if you keep inbounding it into the back court. You get 10, plus 10, plus 10, etc. That's my point.

BTW - I can't believe that after all this time, we still have posters who continue to say that coaches "call" time outs.

I guess my work here has barely started.

[inigo montoya]

Well, coaches do literally "call" "time-out" -- they just can't take time out.

[tomegun]

They don't "call" it, they request it.

I would like to eliminate one timeout by playing 16 minute halves. I seems to work pretty good in the summer, I don't see why it couldn't work during the regular season.

[inigo montoya]

In the sense that they loudly and verbally make known their desire to have a time out, they do literally "call" it. But coaches "call" a lot of things that have no effect in and of themselves.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

Mark, do you know that this is already the rule in FIBA?

Ciao

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Mark, do you know that this is already the rule in FIBA?

Ciao

That might just get him to reconsider.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

We usually discuss this about once each year, but I haven't seen it on the board for a while, so I thought I'd start it.

If you could change just one rule, what would it be and why? Please state the level, also - and try and keep it to just one rule at a time.

Here's my proposed NF change:

Eliminate the ability to inbound into the back court once the ball has been advanced to the front court.

If you accept the reasoning for having a back court violation rule in the first place, then why have an exception just because, for instance, the offensive team takes a timeout? If the reason for having the back court violation rule is to not allow teams to just use the entire court all the time because it takes away the theory that teams should be required to play aggressive offense (or whatever), then why allow an exception that just eliminates that reasoning?

I think that if you're going to allow teams to inbound into the back court in that instance, then you should eliminate the division line altogether. It should either be one way or the other, but not both, since that results in a contradiction of theory.

I guess this "contradiction" doesn't seem that egregious to me, since it's there but it's expensive. THe cost of a TO seems reasonable.

[inigo montoya]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I guess this "contradiction" doesn't seem that egregious to me, since it's there but it's expensive. THe cost of a TO seems reasonable.

Exactly. You are talking about 5 times maximum during a regulation game that a team could "buy back" the backcourt with a time-out.