2009-2010 rule changes

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You don't call it because the rule is there.

Without it, some coach would have his player stand there for a couple of minutes so he could rest his players, have a mini-clinic with the other four players, glare at the officials, ...

My proposal: If there's a held ball (or any other reason to use the AP arrow) with 3 seconds or less to go in any quarter except the 4th, the team with the arrow can "decline" the posession and declare the quarter over. This prevents a team from getting a "wasted" AP posession near the end of a quarter, when they can't take advantage of the play.

Coach subs in 12th man and haves him "push off" to receive the inbounds pass. Foul call, B gets the ensuing throw-in, but A keeps the arrow. It's only a problem if B is in the bonus.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Coach subs in 12th man and haves him "push off" to receive the inbounds pass. Foul call, B gets the ensuing throw-in, but A keeps the arrow. It's only a problem if B is in the bonus.

In your sitch, the throw-in was not legally completed, so no arrow change.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

In your sitch, the throw-in was not legally completed, so no arrow change.

I know! That's why I suggested it. B gets the meaningless possession, while A starts the next quarter.

[SAK]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

NO 10 second count for the Free Throw.

Has any one in the entire universe ever called this??????

I actually had one this year and didn't call it because I knew the coach would go nuts.

I did call this once, in a JV girls game. The girl had the ball for 15 seconds and was still not making any attempt to prepare for the free throw. The Varsity coach went nuts to the point that at half time he came on the court to tell me and my partner how horrible we were. Had to throw him out for the remainder of the game.

I think that it is a necessary evil.

[Mark Padgett]

Another one that comes up from time to time is giving a team that's in the bonus the option of shooting free throws when fouled or just inbounding the ball. This eliminates the incentive for the other team to keep fouling when they are behind.

[SAK]

A1 is inbounding the ball and B2 holds A2 resulting in a foul. I would like to be able to use my judgment to tell if its a common foul for an intentional foul. I think that this type of foul would be called more constantly if the game official has both types of foul available to him rather than just the intentional foul.

[SAK]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Another one that comes up from time to time is giving a team that's in the bonus the option of shooting free throws when fouled or just inbounding the ball. This eliminates the incentive for the other team to keep fouling when they are behind.

Not a fan of this one. In a close gamy the team that is behind deserves to have an opportunity to get the ball back. With no shot clock the team that is leading may never have to lose possession. What is to stop a team from killing he clock after the first made basket? Seems wrong to me.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is FIBA's rule; with an 8-second limit to get across the DL.

It's a great rule.

But you can't have a TO when the ball is live. I agree that the current 8 second rule (no reset just like the shot clock) is better than the old one (similar to NF's).

Ciao

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

With the season winding down, it's time for our almost annual thread regarding rule changes we'd like to see.

Here's an NF change I'd like to see. It's not a big deal, but it seems more equitable. Team A has team control in their backcourt. They request and are granted a timeout. When they subsequently inbound in the backcourt, why not have the 10 second count pick up from where it left off instead of resetting? What's the logic about them getting extra time to get the ball across just because they got a timeout?

Also (and I think I've suggested this every year since Dr. Naismith and I put up the first peach basket) - no overtimes. Of course, it doesn't affect me, since I don't allow them anyway. I'm just thinking of the rest of you.

Change the ruling about headbands, sweatband and hair control devices.....make them take them off.......

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Coach subs in 12th man and haves him "push off" to receive the inbounds pass. Foul call, B gets the ensuing throw-in, but A keeps the arrow. It's only a problem if B is in the bonus.

Not in FIBA, of course, since team A has ball control: no FT in any case (unless the foul was a U).

But if I were team A's coach, I'd prefer to let the opponents start the fourth quarter, keeping the arrow for a possible held ball near the end.

Ciao

[WIRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You don't call it because the rule is there.

My proposal: If there's a held ball (or any other reason to use the AP arrow) with 3 seconds or less to go in any quarter except the 4th, the team with the arrow can "decline" the posession and declare the quarter over. This prevents a team from getting a "wasted" AP posession near the end of a quarter, when they can't take advantage of the play.

I would go for this rule, other than at the end of the 4th Quarter or Overtime. Held ball with 2.9 seconds left, down by 1, and opponent gets the arrow (and ball). Game over? Just make them play the game out as normal. Your rule gives them the advantage of having the ball to start the next quarter, which is fine. But in this case, there is not going to be a next quarter.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by WIRef

I would go for this rule, other than at the end of the 4th Quarter or Overtime. Held ball with 2.9 seconds left, down by 1, and opponent gets the arrow (and ball). Game over? Just make them play the game out as normal. Your rule gives them the advantage of having the ball to start the next quarter, which is fine. But in this case, there is not going to be a next quarter.

I agree -- that's why I said "any quarter except the 4th"

[cardinalfan]

Put a mechanic in that looks like a dog jumping through a hoop to signal over the back.
Then, officials who already use this non-signal would feel like trend-setters... real pioneers of the game.

I would also like to have a mechanic to point at my butt and my head at the same time. It would work well in this situation:
I call traveling on team A. We go the other way, and I call traveling on team B. There should be a mechanic there to let the crowd know I "just called it the same on both ends".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAK

A1 is inbounding the ball and B2 holds A2 resulting in a foul. I would like to be able to use my judgment to tell if its a common foul for an intentional foul. I think that this type of foul would be called more constantly if the game official has both types of foul available to him rather than just the intentional foul.

You can call a common foul here.

[jkumpire]

1. Get rid of all the uniform rules that officials have to enforce during a game.
2. Get rid of all uniform rules that officials have to enforce during a game.
3. Get rid of all rules that turn officials into the fashion police.