9. Eliminate the jump ball to begin overtime.

Rationale: By rule an overtime period is a “continuation of the 4th quarter.” Why do we eliminate the alternating position arrow and start the overtime with a jump ball instead of giving it to the team that was entitled to it at the end of the 4th quarter? If a game went into multiple overtimes and one team had a player significantly taller than the other team, that team could win the toss each time and gain quite an advantage with the first possession in each overtime. This change would simply continue the pattern of giving the next opportunity for a jump ball, i.e. the start of overtime, to the team that had the alternating-possession arrow at the end of the 4th quarter.

Emphasis mine.

Now think about that for a moment. Firstly, my smart azz response is what should we do, make a height limit? Or how about team A has 6"8" kid, team B would need kid over 6'6" for team A 6'8" kid to be eligible. What next, classes by enrollment and height? Say Class4under6'4" Class3over6"2" Class1midgetsonly

Secondly, again think about this for a moment, if said game is going into multiple overtimes, exactly how big of an advantage is it to win the toss?

Every year thousands of people get a king stuck in their eye when they fall asleep at the chess board. This is not a laughing matter. :mad:

Action Packed Chess Match ...
 

Bishops are worse.
http://www.zen28149.zen.co.uk/chess/images/bishop.jpg

I never said the rationale made sense to me; only that was the only one I ever heard. I'd heard there actually was an injury, and the committee over-reacted.

This website has a list of the Iowa girls differences ("adaptations") in the 2003/2004 season.
http://www.icaoa.com/basketball/girl.../adap-0304.htm

Here is the updated bench decorum rule:

BENCH DECORUM RULE---The girls and boys now have the same exact bench decorum rule. Hopefully this will eliminate any misunderstanding or misapplication previously caused by having different rules. There are a couple of basic changes for girls’ coaches. One coach no longer has the liberty to stand the entire time while the game is in progress. A coach will now be allowed to stand and confer with a player(s) whenever the clock is not running. Communication with the player(s) only shall be done in a positive manner and shall take place directly in front of where the coach was seated. Once the ball is back in play and the clock running, the coach must be seated. The same allowances remain in effect as before regarding being able to stand up to call a time out, care for an injured player, coach during a time-out or intermission, go to the scorer’s bench for a correctable error, to replace a disqualified player, and to cheer a great play by their team—but then must return immediately to the bench. While replacing a disqualified player, the coach is now allowed to walk along the team bench to get a player selected to substitute into the game for the disqualified player.

This is a 7-12 grade rule. There will obviously be some preventative officiating done especially early in the season as we transition into this new rule. However flagrant or repeat offenses need to be called. This is not intended to be a time to stand and criticize officials. If standing, the coach shall be coaching their kids. Once seated again, most officials will be willing to move into an area where normal conversation can occur.

Interesting hybrid of the coaching box rule. That started this year, right?

Yes. The girls' coaches lost a lot of freedom with the new interpretation and most of them were less than thrilled about it. The boys' association actually removed the seat-belt rule. The current rule pertains to any coach, as long as it is only one coach who is standing at a single time. The coach can only stand directly in front of the chair he/she was sitting in and must return immediately when the clock properly starts.

Regarding #19: It seems like it would make more sense to make it another variation of GT, rather than a technical foul. Just give the shooting team the points, rather than the points (possibly) and the ball.

Yup.........forgot about walk and talk. I know that's a no no around our area but everyone seems to be doing it.

That was also my thought on two hand reporting. On the high school and lower level games mistakes could easily be made as scorers aren't as experienced as college.

WHAT?! Scorekeepers don't know how to read left to right? And if you verbalize, your numbers as well, you're fine. Officials just have to show the numbers correctly, right hand 1st number left hand 2nd number, so that score kepers can read the numbers left to right. It cracks me up when I see other officials in my area use two hand reporting, but get the numbers backwards. Two handed reporting should be optional at first, until everyone can start getting it right.

But then signaling 22 would look like air quotes. AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...-AirQuotes.jpg

If seasoned officials are doing it wrong, how can you expect the part time mom or dad or high school scorer not to goof it up? Not to mention learning curve on changing it.

No need to change.

Scorekeepers screw up the possession arrow. Now you want some kid (because all scorekeepers are not responsible adults) is on the cell phone to start trying to interpret this mechanic. Remember, this is not college where everyone is paid more or has more at stake with the result.

This is the reason why this should not change. If officials cannot get this right, why do you want such a vital part of reporting to be change? If it was optional, I would not use it. The NBA used it because they have numbers larger than 5. There is no need for this at the HS level.

Peace