Rule change time again

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Edited to add: I just noticed this was submitted by the same person as the proposal to ....

OKay, I see

These are rules changes that people have submitted to the committee? Not rules that have come OUT from the committee? I mean, the committee has not yet signed off on these? Okay, I feel better now...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

OKay, I see

These are rules changes that people have submitted to the committee? Not rules that have come OUT from the committee? I mean, the committee has not yet signed off on these? Okay, I feel better now...

Yes. Apparently these are the proposals that the committee will consider for next season.

And I feel better knowing that some of these are not a done deal.

[Back In The Saddle]

Just out of curiosity, how would you define "dark" for purposes of jersey color? As "easily distinguishable from white"? Some predefined set of colors? Something more scientific?

I know there's a lot of angst among the volleyball crowd about libero jerseys and how they are supposed to be easily distinguishable from regular players. But they can't seem to agree what that means. But that's about the only definition I can see making sense in this case.

[Back In The Saddle]

Okay, I'm really struggling to see why anybody would seriously suggest changing the closely guarded rule in this way. Here's the submitted rationale: "The current rule gives a decided advantage to the defender and takes away a vital skill in ball handling, controlling the dribble. The rule should be changed to eliminate the element of dribbling, or the distance should be reduced. Under the current rule, a player with the ball at the top of the 3-point arc can be closely guarded by a defender standing on the free throw line."

First of all, as I understand it, all of these types of rules that have been tried over the years have, at their root, the express intention of neutralizing the Hot Rod Hundleys of the world. We don't want a super-skilled dribbler to be able to control the ball for minutes at a time. But this proposal seems to want to go there.

Second of all, three feet? Are you kidding me? Any reasonably quick point guard will blow right by any defeneder who is within three feet. So if we reduce the distance, we screw the defense. Sure, this rule works in NCAAW, but they also have a relatively short shot clock to force the action.

Am I missing something? Or is this just a non-starter? And, if so, how did this ever get past the survey and onto the proposed list?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by socalreff

The primary reason they changed the rule in NCAA was that officials were too inconsistent with their counts.

Huh? Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet somehow "fixes" the issue of inconsistent counting? How do you get from one to the other?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Huh? Reducing the closely guarded distance from 6 feet to 3 feet somehow "fixes" the issue of inconsistent counting? How do you get from one to the other?

No, but not requiring them to count during a dribble reduces the number of times that they have strain themselves by counting to 5. Wonder how they manage to administer throw-ins? Hmmmmm.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No, but not requiring them to count during a dribble reduces the number of times that they have strain themselves by counting to 5. Wonder how they manage to administer throw-ins? Hmmmmm.

Gee, and I always thought they removed it just because the shot clock was so short. Silly me. But at least I know to whom I should defer judgment....