The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   2009-2010 rule changes (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/52017-2009-2010-rule-changes.html)

Mark Padgett Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:05pm

2009-2010 rule changes
 
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. :D

SmokeEater Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:12pm

Have all levels and all areas of the world play under ONE (1) set of rules.

That way everyone would be competitive not only locally but internationally as well.

JugglingReferee Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 584589)
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?

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

It's a great rule.

JRutledge Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 584589)
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?

I would hate that rule. Now we have to split hairs with what the count was. That sounds very silly to me. If we use that logic, why not start where you left off on 3 seconds, closely guarded or 5 seconds inbound violations? I do not see the 10 second rule as any different. I really do not want to argue with a coach that thinks 5 seconds went off and I have 3 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 584589)
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. :D

I know this is mostly a joke on your part. But as a general rule, I do not see the big deal with overtimes. I think close games are fun and make you a better official. Why are there so many people opposed to getting overtime games? Now that was a serious question. ;)

Peace

JRutledge Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeEater (Post 584595)
Have all levels and all areas of the world play under ONE (1) set of rules.

That way everyone would be competitive not only locally but internationally as well.

Nope. Not going to happen and would be silly.

Peace

26 Year Gap Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:19pm

1. Delayed entry to court after inbounding ball becomes a violation rather than a way to avoid OT. I think this would be called more often if the penalty were not so severe. It could be an exception to other delays in returning to the court.

2. Compression sleeves. The 'medical' loophole is a crock. They are decorative. Either outlaw them, make them legal, or make them legal complying with the other fashion police items.

3. TO by HC during dead ball only. [Genie, get back in the bottle.]

26 Year Gap Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 584602)
I would hate that rule. Now we have to split hairs with what the count was. That sounds very silly to me. If we use that logic, why not start where you left off on 3 seconds, closely guarded or 5 seconds inbound violations? I do not see the 10 second rule as any different. I really do not want to argue with a coach that thinks 5 seconds went off and I have 3 seconds.

I know this is mostly a joke on your part. But as a general rule, I do not see the big deal with overtimes. I think close games are fun and make you a better official. Why are there so many people opposed to getting overtime games? Now that was a serious question. ;)

Peace

Back in the day, once you got to the point of transition [8 seconds on a 10 second count, or 4 seconds on a 5 second count], it was too late to have a time-out granted. Since that rule was deleted, it would seem Mark's suggestion is a re-incarnation of it.

JugglingReferee Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 584602)
I would hate that rule. Now we have to split hairs with what the count was. That sounds very silly to me. If we use that logic, why not start where you left off on 3 seconds, closely guarded or 5 seconds inbound violations? I do not see the 10 second rule as any different. I really do not want to argue with a coach that thinks 5 seconds went off and I have 3 seconds.

With 3 years of FIBA under my belt now, I've found that the exact opposite is true. Coaches are pro-active in asking us how much time is left to get across half.

JRutledge Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap (Post 584605)
Back in the day, once you got to the point of transition [8 seconds on a 10 second count, or 4 seconds on a 5 second count], it was too late to have a time-out granted. Since that rule was deleted, it would seem Mark's suggestion is a re-incarnation of it.

I am aware that there was once a rule. I just think it was a stupid rule. And it would be inconsistently applied and there would be debates over the time left. Again we need to understand that not everyone at the high school level is that bright to either understand the rule or implement such a rule. This is not the NBA that has a shot clock where this rule is married to the clock.

Peace

Terrapins Fan Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:34pm

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.

JugglingReferee Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan (Post 584611)
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.

Could never happen. A player could then rightfully stand there forever with no recourse by the officials.

JRutledge Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan (Post 584611)
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 saw it happen one time. The kid took an exceptionally long period of time and the coach said nothing. We still give the official crap that called it. He was completely right to call it, but it is so rare we have a little fun with him.

And if a coach cannot teach his kid to shoot a FT within 10 seconds, who cares what he/she thinks.

Peace

bob jenkins Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan (Post 584611)
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.

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.

JugglingReferee Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:43pm

A rule that states that if the clock is stopped, and if a timeout is requested (seemingly) at the same time that possession is gained, a set amount of time comes off the clock, such as 0.3s.

fullor30 Mon Mar 02, 2009 02:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 584618)
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.


Never entered my mind, good one.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1