Rule change time again

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Is Jim right when he talks about a Safety Time-Out? If he is, I'm completely against it. but I'm assuming he's just joking. SO what is a Safety Time-Out?

Jim quoted the suggestion and rationale word for word.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Jim quoted the suggestion and rationale word for word.

It's just too weird. I frankly don't believe it. I think it's a joke.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It's just too weird. I frankly don't believe it. I think it's a joke.

Unfortunately, it's not. I've obtained a copy of the actual rules proposal document, and that is really what it says!

[Camron Rust]

My comments embedded in red.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Here are the proposals that will be considered by the rules committee:

1. Instant replay by state adoption.
No. It works with a small pool of officials and with trained A/V crews. What you'd get at the HS level would be a nightmare....it could take hours to review a single play correctly. And I'm against provisions intended for only the playoffs....they should be played under the same circumstances as the rest of the season.
2. Add definition of a "dark" jersey.
OK.
3. Adjustments to rules for hair control devices.
Such as reducing them? OK. Otherwise, why?
4. Adopting the NCAAW closely guarded rules.
No. Works when you have a short shot clock and/or only a few extremely gifted and quick dribblers.
5. Change team control rules to include the throw-in.
Yes....obvious.
6. Add common fouls during a throw-in to the definition of team control foul.
Yes...obvious.
7. Change definition of team control so that team control ends on a defensive deflection.
This is going to be as big of a mess as the NCAA's experiment into awarding the held ball to the defense. Leave it alone. It may have warts but at least it is clearly defined and the points at which it ends are easily identifiable.
8. Add a new definition for "offensive fouls".
Why? Doesn't team control take care of that if it is changed to cover throw-ins.
9. Eliminate the jump ball to begin overtime.
No. Unnecessary.
10. Eliminate the resumption of play procedure and add another delay of game warning.
No. The warning may be issued but a T will never get called...simply putting it on the floor costs, at most, a possession....sufficient penalty. And is more likely to be enforced than a T.
11. Play halves instead of quarters.
OK, but why? Nothing is wrong with quarters.
12. Eliminate coaches' ability to request time-out during live ball.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
13. Allow coaches to request a "Safety Time-Out" when player safety becomes a concern.
I agree with the others....this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
14. Adopt NCAA rules for FT alignment.
OK, but why? It practically guarantees the defense gets the rebound instead of the roughly 80/20 split we have now. Why not just give the ball to the defense after the shots if cleaning up fouls is the goal (remembering that the NCAA enters on the release...presenting differnet issues).
15. Ignore swinging of elbows violation by defense if committed during a successful try.
No.
16. Shot clock by state adoption.
No....unneccessary. With the disparity in what teams have to work with, the non-shot-clock game give the
17. Adjust penalty for excessive TO; penalize only if discovered when violated.
No.
18. Adjust penalty for illegal jerseys; one team technical maximum.
Yes....more appropriate penalty.
19. Technical foul for causing the ring to vibrate, regardless of whether the contact on the backboard is intentional or not.
No.
20. Shoot the bonus on the second team foul in the last two minutes of the second half, regardless of total team fouls.
No.

They'll also consider some signal additions.

[Mark Padgett]

I heard the new signal additions that are being considered are for "over the back" and "reaching"! Of course, this request came at the behest of coaches, who can't understand why there are no signals for these fouls, which occur all game long and are never called by officials.

BTW - I wonder what the signal would be to indicate a "safety timeout"? Maybe this:

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I heard the new signal additions that are being considered are for "over the back" and "reaching"! Of course, this request came at the behest of coaches, who can't understand why there are no signals for these fouls, which occur all game long and are never called by officials.

BTW - I wonder what the signal would be to indicate a "safety timeout"? Maybe this:

[rainmaker]

1. Instant replay by state adoption.

No. It works with a small pool of officials and with trained A/V crews. What you'd get at the HS level would be a nightmare....it could take hours to review a single play correctly. And I'm against provisions intended for only the playoffs....they should be played under the same circumstances as the rest of the season.

13. Allow coaches to request a "Safety Time-Out" when player safety becomes a concern.

I agree with the others....this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I agree completely, Camron. When, in my mind, I put certain refs as partners on certain games, either of these rule changes is almost enough to give me hives. It would be quite simply awful.

[Mark Padgett]

When I first saw the term "safety timeout" in the original rules consideration list, I thought it meant that if we were going to eliminate coaches requesting timeouts during a live ball situation, then this would be an exception if a player on the floor appeared hurt. OK, that I could see. But they way it was eventually explained is just plain inane. How about a "let 'em play" timeout. It would work the same, only that it would be called if the coaches thought the game was being called too tight.

What would happen if one coach thought the game was being called too loose and the other thought it was being called too tight? I know - call a timeout and let the two of them arm wrestle at mid-court. Winner gets the game called his way.

See how dumb this proposed change really is. The end result would be that coaches, not officials, will in effect be calling the games. Yeah - that'll work.

[eyezen]

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?