2009-2010 rule changes

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by 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".

It might be interpreted as having your head up your butt.

Originally Posted by 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".

Does that include the wagging tail (in our humanistic case, the wagging a**) as well as the hanging, panting tongue?

Hmmmm...this looks a little too close to the "I'm pulling this out of my a**" gesture I use with my co-worker once in a while, but I like it!

[nine01c]

I would like to see "Flopping" become a delayed dead ball. Allow the offensive player A to continue his try for goal (usually a lay-up). If successful, score the goal. Whether successful of not, call the FLOP a violation and give the ball back to A.

This is supposed to be called a Technical Foul (due to unsporting act) but is rarely called due to the severity of the penalty. This is similar to the swinging of the elbows (without contact) and running out of bounds (to avoid a pick) which were both changed from a T to a violation a few years ago. Officials were also reluctant to call these acts Technical Fouls.

I think this change would clean up the Flopping when players decide they don't want to lose possession of the ball (again). Just an idea.

[Texas Aggie]

I'll bring up the one I've suggested for the last 2 years: allow a team to "decline" a free throw penalty and accept a throw in instead (at the spot of the foul). This would cut down on fouling at the end of the game and, more importantly, keep the game moving through the last 2 minutes if there is a foul.

Remove the option of state associations to expand or delete the coaching box. Make it as written in Rule 1 for everyone. It isn't just to let coaches run free. Even though we (in Texas) have a 6 foot box (that UIL won't change), we generally allow the coaches to move down the bench to talk to their players. Technically, we shouldn't, but I feel strongly we should allow this. Besides, we have all kinds of court sizes and where the coach is or should be is often hard to determine. Under the Fed rule as written, it isn't.

[Adam]

I've found a no-call works just as well for the borderline flop. Coaches know why you didn't call it, and invariably chew their players out for not staying with the play.

If it's obvious that he's faking being fouled, give one warning and move on. "Flopping" is not a T, "faking being fouled" is. There's a difference.

[Adam]

I have two:
Make it so the AP arrow only gives the team the ball at their disposal for a throwin, rather than a complete throwin. Flip the arrow when it's at the disposal of the thrower, as all action after that is a direct result of the throwin and in my opinion the AP has done it's job.

Close Pandora's box and take away the timeout request from the coaches during a live ball.

[Texas Aggie]

In a close gamy the team that is behind deserves to have an opportunity to get the ball back.

What exactly do you mean? First of all, they have all the opportunity in the world: steal. Second, neither team is deserving of anything other than a game fairly played according to the spirit and intent of the rules.

There are multiple problems in the current system that were either never originally intended or have grown into a huge problem. First, as the rules currently are, the committee is allowing to commit rules infractions specifically to gain an advantage. They allow fouls to stop the clock as an "acceptable coaching strategy." I disagree strongly with that, but be that as it may, change the rule so that it becomes less effective. Can you name any other sport that essentially allows infractions by teams to gain an advantage?

Second, with the advent of the 3 point shot 2 decades ago, teams gain a huge advantage by essentially trading a (potentially) 2 shot foul for a 3 point attempt (everything else going as planned). Unless we can come up with a third bonus free throw after, say, 12 fouls, or eliminate the 1 and 1 and go to 2 shots at 7 fouls and 3 shots at 10 (something I'd be willing to discuss), then this is nothing but an advantage for a team that, again, commits a rules infraction.

Finally, these games are taking too damn long. Games with 32 playing minutes are often taking 3 times that to complete. Either due to coaching or other factors, the game is much more physical than it was 2 decades essentially forcing us to call more fouls. Teams with 15 players don't really fear foul-outs much, and because free throw shooting, by and large, is so abysmal, teams don't really concern themselves with foul counts. The committee has got to step back and say, "hey, this isn't where we want this sport to go."

[Adam]

I haven't had these problems with the end-of-game fouling.

1. Normally, you only get one or two of these strategic fouls before it either works or backfires. After that, the game is usually too close or too far. And, it's a small percentage of games where this is even attempted.

2. I can't recall the last game I had that took an hour and a half, must be a regional thing.

I think you're attempting to solve a problem that is purely philosophical.

[eyezen]

Two halves.

Stop clock in the 2nd half (see above) under a minute.

[AKOFL]

How about held ball goes to the defence? Keep the arrow for the quarters but reward the defence for their hard work.
Player control fouls gone, all become team control fouls.
How can you commit a player control foul when you don't have the ball anymore. (airbourn shooter after release) This needs to change to be more like college.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have two:
Make it so the AP arrow only gives the team the ball at their disposal for a throwin, rather than a complete throwin. Flip the arrow when it's at the disposal of the thrower, as all action after that is a direct result of the throwin and in my opinion the AP has done it's job.

So, B can foul before the bonus, A will still get the throw-in for the foul, but now they also lose the arrow, even though the throw-in was never completed?

Or, you can use the following quote:

Originally Posted by Semi-esteemed member

I think you're attempting to solve a problem that is purely philosophical.

[Adam]

I was going to specifically request you not post that picture when I wrote that.

I also caught the irony as I wrote to Texas Aggie. The difference is I'm admitting it's philosophical.

And, my point is that the throwin does not have to be completed, it only needs to be started for the arrow to have done it's job. I admit, however, that the committee wants there to be a full throwin following each AP opportunity before it switches.

I will say, however, that it's a bit inconsistent to reverse the arrow on an offensive violation but not an offensive foul.

BTW, I just realized the arrow would not switch if the offense commits a kicking violation before the throwin is over. It only switches on a legal touch or a "throwin violation."

[budjones05]

I'm surprise Mark didn't list no Overtime!! But anyway, I think time-outs should only be requested from a player on the court and not the coach. Also, I like to see pregames like the one is college where the players meet we go over the rules with them then we go and meet the coaches.

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

.

"Flopping" is not a T, "faking being fouled" is. There's a difference.

Maybe you think so, but the NFHS disagrees with you. According to the NFHS, they're exactly the same thing.

See POE #4B labelled "Flopping" in the NFHS 2004-05 Rule Book. Note the sentence there-in saying "Coaches can have a positive impact by appropriately dealing with players who fake being fouled." The penalty for "flopping" is also set out as a technical foul.

[Adam]

Good point, I made my point poorly. My point is that many officials feel that falling early, or falling without any contact, is the same as faking being fouled. They are not the same.

Too often I see those actions referred to as "flopping," and I just fell into the same trap.