Rule change time again
 

Now that the NF season is over, we may as well spend some time discussing desired rule changes.

Here's mine:

1. change from 8 minute quarters to 16 minute halves - games are long enough without two "extra" timeouts.

2. allow taunting, but also allow retaliation for it - this would make the games much more entertaining

3. require all players, coaches, trainers, announcers and spectators to pass a rules quiz prior to allowing them entrance into the gym

OK - I only meant the first one seriously, but the other two would be kind of cool.

We are playing 18 minute halves here in Minnesota. They made the change 2 years ago and it has been great. No one holds for one shot midway through the half like they would at the end of the first or third qtr.

Here are my proposed changes:

1. A coach's request for a time out may only be recognized when the ball is dead, including after a made basket.

2. Remove the now-extraneous free throw lane marks.

3. Change the illegal uniform penalty to be a single team technical the first time it occurs, like changing the book. And only in varsity games.

4. Switch from one-hand to two-hand reporting.

5. I've got a friend that coaches youth soccer. He was required this year to attend (USSF?) classes to certify as a youth coach in order to continue coaching (he was able to coach his first year on a waiver). I'd like to see HS basketball coaches be required to meet similar criteria. Classes would cover things like ethical behavior, sportsmanship, the proper role of sports in society, the real rules of the game. Coaches would be required to pass a proctored yearly rules test to keep their certification. Coaches who persistently misbehave may be stripped of their coaching credential for a year or more. Repeat offenders may be stripped for longer periods of time, including for life.

I'd like to see that rule for female coaches. In fact, I'd volunteer to enforce it. :rolleyes:

Curious.......why switch to two hand reporting?

1) Move players up on the free throw lane like the college rule -- this has cleaned up rebounding fouls big time.

2) Change the team control foul rule to incorporate the throw-in as well.

3) Change a technical foul to be POI instead of losing possession as well.

1) Would you want this for lower levels also? Our CYO JV level (4th through 6th graders) presently has a rule that everyone must play in two quarters and no more than three in a regulation game so teams cant keep their best players in the entire game. I'm not sure how we would make this work with halves, unless we added yet more vague and confusing local rules. :eek:

2) That reminds me of the 2 on 2 arcade basketball game where you could punch your opponent to steal the ball or keep them from getting rebounds. :D

3) I'd also require anyone entering the gym (officials included) if they know NFHS Rule 6-4-5, since I'm convinced I'm the only one in my area who knows this rule. ;)

1. Adopt all collegiate rules and be done with rule changes that progress toward college basketball.

2. Have seperate rules for boys and girls basketball.

3. Do away with yearly rule changes for a five year period. Identify POE's only on a yearly basis.

I like the idea of halves and not quarters. Our Youth Rec League has 20 min running halves with participation rules - players must play at least one-half of each game, players must sit 5 consecutive minutes. The coaches are very cognizant of it and do a really good job adhering to it. Works very well. Could it be abused? Sure. Game could also be forfeited. Never seen it though. But this is Youth Rec Ball. Who cares? Well, other than the kids, parents, coaches, and fans of course.....:D

This is very similar to why Massachusetts went from halves back to quarters. In HS, a kid could play only 2 halves per day. So you could play the first half of the JV game and then the first half of the Varsity game. But if the coach used the kid for 2 minutes at the beginning of the game, that counted as his whole half. So now, with quarters, that kid could play 2 minutes early in the JV game, and still be eligible to play 3 quarters of the Varsity game.

It just gives the coaches more flexibility in giving out playing time.

I would be happy if they did away with rules changes for just ONE year.

Rule 4-17 Extra Period is changed to sudden death.

Might want to change the name, though. I've been in some small rural towns where they might take this a bit too literally.

"Do we gotta killem' all, or will one of 'em do?"

Other sports sometimes use the phrase "sudden victory".

Start with the assistant coaches, work your way up to the head coach. If they still go OT at some point during the year, then the officials get to decide which player gets it next! :eek:

(That'll shut that mouthy point guard up, one way or another)

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

1. Instant replay by state adoption.
2. Add definition of a "dark" jersey.
3. Adjustments to rules for hair control devices.
4. Adopting the NCAAW closely guarded rules.
5. Change team control rules to include the throw-in.
6. Add common fouls during a throw-in to the definition of team control foul.
7. Change definition of team control so that team control ends on a defensive deflection.
8. Add a new definition for "offensive fouls".
9. Eliminate the jump ball to begin overtime.
10. Eliminate the resumption of play procedure and add another delay of game warning.
11. Play halves instead of quarters.
12. Eliminate coaches' ability to request time-out during live ball.
13. Allow coaches to request a "Safety Time-Out" when player safety becomes a concern.
14. Adopt NCAA rules for FT alignment.
15. Ignore swinging of elbows violation by defense if committed during a successful try.
16. Shot clock by state adoption.
17. Adjust penalty for excessive TO; penalize only if discovered when violated.
18. Adjust penalty for illegal jerseys; one team technical maximum.
19. Technical foul for causing the ring to vibrate, regardless of whether the contact on the backboard is intentional or not.
20. Shoot the bonus on the second team foul in the last two minutes of the second half, regardless of total team fouls.

They'll also consider some signal additions.

1. Don't care.
2. Don't care.
3. Don't care.
4. I'm against it.
5. I like it.
6. Same as #5.
7. Something tells me the idiot who sumitted this request didn't think it through; or isn't capable of thinking it through. Must be from New Jersey.
8. Don't care.
9. Against it.
10. Against it.
11. Against it.
12. Love it.
13. This is just stupid.
14. Like it.
15. Like it.
16. Don't care.
17. Against it.
18. Like it.
19. Like it; if it affects the shot.
20. Not quite as stupid as 7 or 13, but it's running a solid third place.

Without a shot clock I don't like this proposal.

I'm not offended by #20. It's a situation that rarely happens and when it does it would be nice to not have to call four fouls in a row to get to the bonus.

I don't mind playing halves, but someone tell me why 18 minutes and not 16? To me, it's adding a mandated overtime period to every game and I guarantee that the schools will cut the same checks I signed my contracts for and they will not add an additional 12.5% to the game fee. Not that money is a huge factor to me, but the schools never "do the right thing" in this area.

I would change the timeouts to 2 60-second timeouts and 3 30-second timeouts, but nobody has ever asked me. :)

Rich, changing the playing time is not part of this proposal. The 18 minute halves are unique to Minnesota, as far as I know. (I agree with you about the extra playing time, I'm against it.)

So I guess this guy is out a luck if # 4 gets approved.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_rzJHDdHabLw/...+armed+man.gif

see above.....

Just FYI - here is the full "Safety Time Out" Proposal:

Any head coach may call a Safety Time Out. Both Head coaches and the Game Officials will meet in the center of the court. The Head coach will state why he/she feels that player safety is not acceptable. The opposing head coach will be asked if they agree or disagree with the claim. If both coaches agree then the officials are bound to correct their actions. Play will resume for 2 minutes of game time before a safety time out can be called again.

Rationale: I have witnessed too many basketball games that have evolved into full contact, and hardest hitter wins, contests. Most have resulted in players needing medical treatment. The state office has failed to address the issue over several years. I have asked many officials why this is happening; the usual response is that if they called all the fouls they saw then the games would take too long. It is interpreted that this willful disregard for the established rules is a provable case of Felony Child Abuse. I would like the national level rules committee to attempt to address this issue with a new rule.

So the coach could call a "safety timeout" in order to have a b!tch session at half court?

Dumbest idea ever.

Hmm...dumbest idea <B>ever</B>?

What about screen doors for submarines?

Invading Iraq?

Braile menus in drive-thru's?

It does rank up there, though.

Making Kerry Wood your closer?

I fixed it for you.

:p

Talk to me about that a month from now.

<font size=1>If he's not on the DL.</font size>

Ok, I can live with the correction.

(I probably could've left out the serious topic in that list, right?)

I agree with that one as well.

I wasn't going to say anything, but.... :)

I almost knocked over my computer on that one.

Peace

That one will be ignored (and laughed at in the background).

Peace

Considering that many of the people that are usually on the board are not officials, do not be so sure about that one. ;)

Peace

Why would you want different rules for girls?

We already have different rules in CA.
The rationale is that it prepares them better for the college game as well as speeding up play.
I still think they have the shot clocks wrong though....it should be 30 for boys and 35 for girls.

I would love this to happen. We would have a safety timeout, coaches would get whacked and we'd shoot free throws.

The fact that coaches, players, fans, and even many officials can't properly learn one set of rules should be warning enough against implementing two sets! :D

They do that in Cali just so the players competency will stay on par with the referees. :D

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

How did this one actually make it to the list that the committee has to consider?
If both coaches don't like the job that the officials are doing, then the officials should leave and the coaches should officiate the remainder of the contest. Good luck.
Clearly this submission was not made by an official.

I love the part in red. Let's make officiating basketball games a democratic affair.

"Ref, we both agree, you are not calling this game properly. Call more fouls or you don't get paid. Oh but only call them on the other team." Oh Lordy....

Maybe they can consider an "Ask the Audience" rule next year. :rolleyes:

JMO

As a rule I never talk about any of these things in mixed company because you never know who you'll offend (and gawd knows I would never want to offend anyone... except maybe that annoying irritant troll Bhuk Elics)

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. The relative level of athleticism and competition men's basketball to woman's

Exactly!!:p

4. Palming?

That's one of many good reasons not to

Yeah that too, until recently. :rolleyes:

What rules differ?

IMHO, the rationale is dumb as 95 % of high school players aren't playing at the next level. So NCAAW should adapt WNBA rules to prepare them for the pros?

Why not enjoy the moment and not be worried about ...........the next level.

That's actually a good argument to have one set of rules in college.

I gave that up for Lent.

Dumb blond asks boyfriend to have sex. He tells her he can't because it's Lent. She asks, "to who and for how long?"

Three blonde friends died together in a car wreck. They found themselves standing in front of the pearly gates with St. Peter. He told them that before they could enter heaven, they had to tell him what Easter was about.

The first blonde said, "Easter is a big holiday where we give thanks, have a big feast and eat turkey."

"Nooooo," said St. Peter. "You don't get in."

The second blonde said, "Easter is the holiday that we celebrate Jesus' being born of the virgin and give gifts to each other."

"Nooooo," said St. Peter. "You don't get in, either."

The third blonde said, "Well, I know what Easter is all about. Easter is a Christian holiday which coincides with the Jewish Passover. After Jesus celebrated Passover with His disciples, He was betrayed by Judas and turned over to the Romans. They crucified Him on a cross. After He died, they buried him in a tomb and put a huge boulder in front of it."

"Very good!" said St. Peter.

The blonde continued. "Now, every year, the Jews roll the stone away and Jesus comes out. If He sees his shadow, we have 6 more weeks of basketball."

Not at all! If I'm not mistaken, that's a loaded handgun in that guy's left hand. If that's the case, I'd be willing make him the third on the crew and let him deal with coaches, fans, and mouthy players! :D

Absolutely no way.
Don't care.
Yes
Yes
don't care.
Absolutely!
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?
Don't care
No.
Yes.
Why?
Don't care.
No.

For those of you who want to get rid of the jumpball to start overtime...why? Is it just because that's not how we start every other quarter?

As for two-handed reporting, I've only seen it done. I've not worked any leagues that do it myself. So, I'm speculating...

But I like how it appears to simplify reporting. It goes a little quicker. There seems to be less liklihood of the scorekeeper missing a digit. Though the times I've tried it (in summer ball, just for kicks), it was surprisingly more difficult to do.

But if it speeds up reporting, and makes it less error prone, I'm all over it.

HUH? Did they change the rule on how to start the first quarter while I was taking one of my daily naps? :confused:

Next year, starting the game with a coin toss will be proposed. But who will we toss the coin toward?

How does it make it quicker? And I really do not see this as simpler either. If you want to make reporting quicker, all you have to do is get rid of the reporting area and allow officials to walk and talk, and that would solve that problem. But I can see how scorekeepers will just mistake the right hand for the left hand and mix the numbers and you will have problems.

Peace

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.

You forgot the next step.

....and the safety timeout would be revoked the next year.

Exactly. Perhaps even mid-year.

The Honest Truth
 

The IGHSAU (Iowa Girls) used to start their games this way..... THIS CENTURY!

Used to? They've changed?

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

During the 2004-05 and 2005-06 seasons, the Iowa Girls decided who would start the game with the ball by a coin-toss during the captains' meeting. I believe it was the home team who would call "heads" or "tails," and the winner of the toss received the ball. There was no option of deferring if a team desired to do so. The possession arrow would then be set towards the loser of the toss. The reasoning, from what I heard, is that the officials weren't being consistent in throwing the ball straight up for the jump ball and the players risked injury by having to jump to start the game. I don't know for sure which was the true reason behind the coin toss.

The Iowa Girls Union also implemented a state adaptation where the possession arrow reversed as soon as the ball was at the disposal of the player for the throw-in. That changed for the 2006-07 season.

So currently do you toss the ball or a coin at the start of the game?

I still think the best way to keep a game moving in the last couple of minutes is to allow a throw in option for all fouls, possibly including shooting fouls. This removes most incentive to foul to stop the clock unless one team just can't inbound the ball.

They quit doing the coin toss the year I left. There are some other differences, as jalons states. The arrow was one (wasn't aware they'd changed it.) It was the one difference I liked, personally.
Also, they line up for free throws the college way (lower block empty, top block can be occupied.) Girls allow the coaching box, boys do not. Previously, there were no indirect Ts in girls ball (not sure if these have changed.) There has been a concerted effort lately to make the rules more similar to the boys.

I'd never heard the reasoning that officials were inconsistent. I had heard there was concern over players getting hurt during jump balls, so that's why they went to the coin toss for a few years (I'm pretty sure it was more than 2 seasons.) My guess is the guy who proposed the safety timeout is related to the one who got the coin toss getting implemented.

Agreed. I wish it was a joke. :(
The rationale for ending team control is not quite as lame; even though the proposal itself is less than horrifying.

What is the point in this proposal? Is it aimed at introducing some kind of "loose ball foul" into the HS game? Is it aimed at eliminating the 10 count when a ball goes into back court? Eliminating 3 seconds durring an interrupted dribble or when the ball is knocked away? What exactly is the submitter hoping to accomplish?

Edited to add: I just noticed this was submitted by the same person as the proposal to combine team and player control fouls into a single "offensive foul" rule. I guess you'd have to make the change above in order to actually combine these since you can't have a player control foul during an interrupted dribble (or indeed any time when no player is in control of the ball, excepting an airborne shooter).

Which is not to say that I agree with it. It should still be a team control foul even without player control. So I guess I disagree with both proposals.

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. :D

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.

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? :confused:

I think they should bring back the peach baskets.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=60176&rendTypeId=4

And shirts and skins too! :eek:

If they really thought that, why would they allow rebounding? Whatinthehell is the difference? Hell, using the same rationale, we should flip a coin on every missed shot.

Silly monkeys....:rolleyes:

Well if that is the case, I do not think I have ever heard or seen a player get hurt during a jump ball. If anything I have been kicked and hit more than any player I have ever seen. ;)

Peace

I think the rule changes normally are voted upon and then leaked..er...released late in the month of April.

Rut, does the kicking occur in the captains' meeting? or only during the actual toss?:D

My comments embedded in red.

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. :p

BTW - I wonder what the signal would be to indicate a "safety timeout"? Maybe this: http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...otallthere.gif

probably don't need the hat
 

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.

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.

Why can't we just have a safety timeout on every miss?

Or, just outlaw basketball altogether and play chess instead. After all, when did someone ever have to be carried out of a chess match on a backboard because of whiplash or a concussion?

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. :o

Juulie - you've never seen Josh play chess. :D

Inside joke, folks.

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.