2009-2010 rule changes

[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.

[SmokeEater]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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]

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.]

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

[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

[JRutledge]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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.

Close, but no cigar. It was "change of status".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Delayed entry to court after inbounding ball becomes a violation rather than a T. I think this would be called more often if the penalty were not so severe.

Agree.

No more jump balls to start the game, or overtime. Flip a coin, or give the ball to the visitors to start the game, and use the alternating possession arrow for the rest of the game.

Coaches may not request a timeout. Only one of the players on the court.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Close, but no cigar. It was "change of status".

I don't smoke.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I don't smoke.

Well then, you can't select a prize from any shelf.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[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.