King for a day
 

Jokes aside. If you could make "one" change to the game either a rule, or something else concerning timing (whatever your the king:cool:). Maybe even goning back to a previous rule. I personnally would like two halfs instead of quarters. I think that some states do that now(east coast?). What do you think?

I don't think the halves verses quarters issue is all that important either way. While I'd like to see the change, there are others I'd prefer to see if I had to choose.

My number one desired change: Coaches can only request timeout during a dead ball (including after a made basket, when we can spare a moment to glance.) All live ball TO's must be requested by a player on the team in control.

Correctable error/failure to award merited free throws
 

If a team who did not receive merited free throws scores a field goal before the error is noticed then the correctable period will be deemed to have expired and free throws cannot now be awarded.

I'd like to see NFHS mirror the NCAA and allow players into the lane on the release of a free throw, rather than waiting for the rim.

Is that actually in the NCAA rules? Or is that one of those things that nobody enforces?

Everybody Already Knows My Answer ...
 

No jump balls to start the game or the overtime period. Toss a coin, or let the visitors have the ball first.

Second choice: Don't allow coaches to request timeouts during live balls. Only allow the players to request timeouts when the ball is live.

“It’s good to be the king” (Mel Brooks as Louis XVI of France)

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/image/27e8a14f31b4c230

What was the reasoning behind changing this? I don't really like that ascept of it either. It is also changed in football. Can the players not be trusted to call the timeout at the proper time? If not, how will they learn?

To the OP,
I am not big fan of the huddle/high five @ the free throw line after a FTA.

It's in the rules; just like it was in the NFHS rules way back when I played (ca. 1990). The restrictions end on the release; except for the players not along the lane and the shooter, for whom the restrictions end when the ball hits either the backboard or the rim.

Why? :confused:

I personally think the players in the lane on the release is LESS rough than on the rim, and now with the players up a spot should be revisited.

I will never understand what people have against quarters in high school basketball.

Section 1. Free Throw

Art. 2. After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free-thrower:
...
d. The free-thrower shall not enter the semicircle. The free-thrower shall not leave the semicircle before the try contacts the ring, backboard or when the free throw ends.
e. No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space or contact any part of the court outside the marked lane space until the free-thrower has released the ball.

It's not a huge deal. I think it would add to the natural flow of the game. The coaches have plenty of time-outs to adjust to things as needed. Does anyone currently have that in place in there state? If so, what are your opinions?

Would Someone Please Help Me Down From This Soapbox ???
 

From a thread from two months ago:

I go back to before the alternating possession arrow, when we had jump balls to start each period, for each held ball situation, and even for closely guarded situations, at three different circles on the court, with a lot of different players involved. Back then, because we had so many jump balls, coaches actually had jump ball plays, depending on which circle, and the probability of winning, or losing the tap. These coaches knew the various rules regarding jump balls, and taught these rules to their players. Officials, again, because there were so many jump balls, knew all the jump ball rules like the back of their hand, and good officials actually spent time practicing tosses by tossing the ball up through a basket from below, usually before preseason scrimmages. Now that we have only one jump ball a game, plus overtimes, coaches don't really know the rules, and since they don't know the rules, their players don't know the rules. It’s the same with officials. Now that we have only one jump ball a game, plus overtimes, officials, myself included, don't know the various jump ball rules as well now as we did before the advent of alternating possessions. And these rules aren't easy to understand, especially when you have to apply them in a split second, and only get the opportunity to apply them a few dozen times each season, half the time as the tosser, and the other half of the time as the official observing the jump ball. Jumpers, players on the circle, players off the circle. Official ready to toss, official tosses, ball is tapped. Open spots on the circle, filled spots on the circle. Moving onto the circle, moving off of the circle. Today, it seems like the two tallest kids get to jump, a few shorter kids match up on the circle, and a few more match up off the circle. The official throws up the toss, not with the same skill that I saw many years ago, and the other official stands back and hopes that nothing "odd", or "weird", happens, that is, "odd enough”, or "weird enough”, to be immediately recognized as a violation. Over the past 100 years, we’ve gone from jump balls after every basket; to jump balls to start each period, for each held ball situation, and for closely guarded situations, at three different circles on the court; to a single jump ball at the center circle to start the game, plus overtimes, with alternating possessions after that. I think that the next logical progression is to start the game with a coin toss, like they do in soccer, football, and probably a few other sports. Or let the visitors get to go on offense first, like in baseball, or softball.

Rationale For Timeout Requests ...
 

Coaches should not be allowed to request timeouts during live ball situations. Over the past several years there have been a few points of emphasis regarding coaches calling timeouts during live ball situations, but this hasn’t made the enforcement of this rule any easier. A common situation is where a player is trapped along a boundary, often in a corner, is about to turnover the ball, or is about to be caught in a held ball situation, or is about to commit a five second violation, and the coach requests a timeout to maintain possession of the ball. As officials, we’re watching for fouls, traveling, boundary lines, counting five seconds, etc., a very difficult situation to begin with, and now we hear, usually from behind us, “time out”. We have to make sure that the request came from the head coach, not an assistant coach, or from a parent sitting behind the team bench, and check to make sure that the ball is being held, or dribbled, by a player from that head coach’s team, before we grant the request. Either go back to the old rule only allowing players holding, or dribbling, the ball to request a timeout, or only allow coaches to request timeouts during dead ball situations, including during the dead ball period immediately after a made basket.

I think a big part of the problem is situational awareness. We had one situation last night where a coach was right in front of the L going down the floor asking for a timeout at a logical time and the L didn't notice it. I caught it first from the C opposite the table -- I was looking for it. You can't always know when someone is going to request a timeout, but you should have an idea. Good official, too, just didn't hear the coach. I was looking across for it.

I'm on the opposite side here. I'd hate to know a coach wanted a timeout and have to wait until he/she got the player's attention in order to grant it. I remember those days. Now is better.

Eliminate all live ball timeouts? I'd go for that.

We have 16-minute halves as an option in non-conference games this season. No incentive for the coaches, really. It costs them 2 free 60-second timeouts. If we'd given them each an extra 30-second timeout or required a "media timeout" in each half at the first dead ball under 8 minutes, we'd see more teams try it out, I think. I'd like this -- 2 less last second shot possibilities and two less AP situations.

Getting rid of jump balls period? Not a fan of that idea at all. One jump ball a game ( not counting any overtime or a re-toss) shouldn't really be an issue. There is nothing wrong with a jump ball to start the game and overtimes.

I had my first game that didn't start with a jump ball in a long time yesterday- kid in a JV game dunked ( twice, first one he was spoken too) in the warm up- that's a silly rule. I know others disagree with me.

Another rule I know others disagree with me on is seeing an player disqualified for a flagrant foul have to leave the bench and goto the dressing room.

The ability for teams to mutually agree on the colour of their uniforms ( home in dark, away in white) seems only natural to me.

I prefer people being able to enter the lane on release of the ball, but I believe NHFS changed that about 10 years ago or so to clean up rough play.

OH YA- shot clocks. Shot clocks make for such a better game. In going from FIBA with a 24 second shot clock to Fed with an 4 8 minute shot clocks, it is such a better game.

So if I could change only one rule, it would be the implementation of shot clocks for all high school and up games.

Well I disagree with your logic. I don't find the jump ball rules that hard to digest and understand. We typically have a jump ball every game, so these rules should be thought about every game and will be fresh. Now the correctable error rule, which we rarely ever have to actually implement, is infintely more complicated in my opinion. Jump ball rules are simple compared to correctable errors.

I remember quite some time ago I did a pre-season G tournament in Iowa where they experimented with the shot clock. It worked well, but we did have some issues with the personnel running the clock at times. There would be a rather big learning curve for officials and the table getting started. Can't say I remember what ever came of it. Anyone from Iowa have anything?

It's interesting to read all of the posts and desired changes in this thread. Most I think mirror in concept what FIBA rules enforces.

So if I had to be King for a day I would liek to have all levels of basketball in every part of the world play with the same rules set, (i really don't care which one), just get some uniformity and don't make any modifications to them.

I think all games should be 8 minute quarters running clock, teams should have no timeouts, games can end in a tie after regulation, possession after a jump ball should be determined by the two players involved arm wrestling, dunking allowed only in girls games and no intentional or flagrant foul calls - let 'em get as violent as they want.

Most important - coaches must remain seated - IN THE PARKING LOT!

If I could change one FIBA rule it would be getting away from their dumb numbers system. Considering they are much more relaxed on a number of uniform issues, it seems laughable that they only permit 4-15

I've only seen one that mirrored FIBA, Rich's "get rid of live ball timeouts." Nothing else has gone that way.

When I posted that reply I saw the posts about correctable errors and also entering the lane on Free throws which are the way FIBA is now. Or at least some resemblence to this.

Ah, I'd forgotten about the FT thing, and didn't know FIBA had that rule on CE.

Ditto
 

That would at least convey some of the responsibility for communication to the coach and the players where it belongs, rather than saddling the officials, in the heat of the moment with their eyes on the action, with the expectation that they hear, confirm, and acknowledge every request that's given or else they're trying to somehow shaft the team. Just last week I was accused with the words, "There, are you happy? You cost us a possession because you didn't give me a timeout when I asked for it!" (There was no player control at the time).

I've been asking coaches lately to make their TO requests somehow multisyllabic. Like "How 'bout a 60 second timeout here!" Or "We'd like a timeout." Or, "We have possession, how 'bout a timeout." When they stand there and just yell "Time!", that one word request gets lost in all the other terse orders they're barking continuously to their teams all game long. The jury is still out on the experiment.

Just make it easy...only players on the floor may request a timeout. Let the coaches teach their players to keep an eye on them instead of us. Used to be that way back when I started in the late '70's, if I remember right.

How often does this ever happen in a Varsity game? This is silly.

MN does halves. It's great.

Last night...except for the T part....

You must have had a moron for an official then. What coach in his right mind would call a timeout while his team has a fast break? Knowing this, any reputable varsity official would think to look and make sure the correct coach actually requested a timeout. I assume this was the new trail as the new lead would have been closer to you at the time?

So did the game fees go up when you were forced to work 4:00 more per game?

Get rid of the current coaches box and let coaches use a college style box. Then when they get T'd, they can sit down like the current rule. Then they have no excuse for getting stuck.

Peace

I wondered that a couple times. But it was 2 man so double that. ;)

Not me.

No, it was first half and my player already passed me on the sideline with a 2 on 2 break. The original trail saw the steal and was passing the other coach by then and had the IW.

The other coach was mad at them earlier in the game when his TO request went unheard and was trying to make a point since there was an official running by him. It was bang bang and considering the previous circumstances, I don't blame the guy for the IW. I blame the other coach.

If he can coax an inadvertant whistle, to stop a play and set up his 1-3-1 trap at 1/2 court.... then I think causing an IW that way should be a T.

I don't think so. Personally it never even crossed my mind. I don't remember even hearing any serious talk about increasing game fees at the time. The resistance to 3 person in some areas was enough to keep us from pushing for more money.

No Cheating ...
 

constable and Smitty: You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but just for kicks, and please don't cheat by looking it up, give me all the rules about a jump ball, and do it as fast as you can type. Now don't forget to include rules for jumpers, nonjumpers, players on the circle, players off the circle, official ready to toss, official tosses, ball is tapped, open spots on the circle, filled spots on the circle, moving onto the circle, moving off of the circle. I'll even give you a hint, nonjumpers on the circle can move off the circle at any time. Now it's your turn. Ready. Set. Go.

Billy, give me all the rules about technical fouls without looking them up.

Good Point ...
 

Many, but certainly not all, technical fouls happen over a period of several seconds, for example the scorer tells you a name is not in the book, or the coach has been distracting you over a period of a few minutes. We often, but not all the time, have time to not only think about what just occurred, but in some cases we can confer with our partner to confirm that a technical foul infraction has occurred.

Jump ball violations happen in the space of a split second, often viewed by only the nontossing official. Do you honestly believe that officials today know the jump ball rules as well as they used to before the advent of the alternating possession arrow? I know that I don't. I would rather spend my study time reviewing the travel rules, or the rules on screening, or rules regarding free throw violations, rules that can be difficult to completely understand, yet we have to know them like we know the back of our hands, because we'll be seeing situations involving these rules many, many, times during the course of a game. I know that I am being lazy admitting this, but since I only observe, as the nontosser, one jump ball, in every other game that I officiate, I'm not wasting my time studying the jump ball rules more than once a season.

Note how may threads, or posts, we get on the Forum about jump ball rules. Do you think it's because all Forum members, except me, know the jump ball rules like they know their own name? Or, rather, is it because they really don't care enough about some rules that they will not need to understand for thirty-one minutes, and fifty-nine seconds, rules that most coaches, players, parents, and maybe, even their partners, don't know very well, and can't criticize their rule knowledge, or lack of, in regard to this set of rules?

Most officials couldn't tell you, without looking, the intricacies of the TF rules either. FCOL, a good chunk of officials would stumble on two or three of the free throw rules.

Hey, It's Dangerous To Paint A Line There ...
 

Hey. I work with a few officials that stumble over a boundary line when they don't look where they're going.

That's funny, I don't remember ever being in Connecticut.

I know you said one but....
 

Stop the clock under a minute in the 4th quarter after a made basket
-seems counter intuitive but it would result in better flow of close games
-less TO's called during the end of the game just to stop the clock, take into consideration a TO is going to cost at least a good minute-thirty/minute-fourtyfive from whistle to whistle
-in another wise benign game with no TO's called, it would add maybe 20 secs total if that
-would be ignored completely during mercy clock situations

Coaches can only call a TO while the ball is dead and clock stopped
- obvious

16 minute halves
- better flow, potential for more scoring as two less opt for teams to hold the ball for "last shot"
- not to mention two less chances for us to screw up a horn/shot or shot/horn sequence
- the 8 minute and 24 minute mark now become just like any other

I don't want to push my luck with asking for a shot clock
-but again better flow - less fouling during close games

Now Where Are Snaqwells' Car Keys ???
 

That's part of the problem.

Unify the NFHS, NCAA-M, and NCAA-W rules and mechanics. There is no good reason for them to be different except for length of quarters.

Constable,

You should move down here to Washington State then. We have a 30-second shot clock for girls, & a 35-second shot clock for boys. The WIAA amended the Boys' shot clock regulation just over the summer. It's been interesting to see the coaches getting used to the shot clock & the style of play has evolved from it.

How about just play "street rules", no blood, no foul??

I am getting ready to go to work right now but you can bet your sweet bippy that tomorrow I will have a lot to say on this thread. :D

MTD, Sr.

If I were King for a Day, until someone wakes up:
 

The introduction of the FED book would say:

"The game of basketball is to be played by teams of up to 10 players per side. In any scholastic basketball contest, the only people allowed in the playing facility are the players for each team, a scoreboard operator, two scorekeepers, three officials, one school administrator, and one trainer. When a player fouls out or is ejected from the game, he or she is to be escorted from the playing area by an administrator to his or her team's locker room.

All fans are to be seated in a room on the other side of the school where their loud and obnoxious behavior and attitudes can be shared among themselves. Home fans will watch the game on TV from a large room, visiting fans will watch the game on TV from a smaller room, wth a wall between the two sets of fans.

There shall be a limit of one head coach and one assistant coach per team. Coaches will have to sit in the locker rooms, and will only be allowed to communicate with their teams in the locker room before the start of the game and at halftime. They will watch the game on TV in their team's locker room and cannot communicate with either team during play in the game."

Brace yourselves, I know this is rare....

... I agree with Camron. All rules and mechanics the same for NFHS, NCAA, men, women, boys and girls. Including 3-whistle for all HS-JV and above.

Barring that, I think we should go back to jumping every single held ball, and then make girls Fr and below running clock to avoid the 3 hour games.

If we go back to jumping all the time, games will be much, much longer.

My thoughts
- Fix the team control definition so it is a team control foul on an inbounds throw in
- Teams cant call time out after a made basket
- Stop clock after made basket in last minute
- Advance the ball after a time out to mid court in the last two minutes.
- Have shot clock and rop all the five second counts

I'd be a fan of all of these. I might also add I'd take away the ability to substitute after the last made free throw unless it was for a intentional/flagrant foul or a technical foul.

Totally agree. Doubling the number of players per team would make everything a lot better:rolleyes:

So the 9th grade girls B team's games should have the same rules as a D-I men's college game?

NCAA-M (maybe women) should get rid of alternating possession throw ins. Playing 2 halves requires only 2 jump balls opposed to 4 with quarters and with the number of held balls at that level wasting time setting up for a jump ball would not me a major issue.

Aside from the shot clock, the rules aren't all that different. A much bigger difference than the rules is the size and strength of the older players and thus how advantage/disadvantage is applied. So yeah, same rules for freshman girls and D-1 men.

Your point is silly and irrelevant. I simply disagreed with your idea to take away the opening jump ball. Way to go over the top, though. :rolleyes:

Not in every game, but certainly in a big game with lots of people in the stands, there is an excitement at the start of the game when the players are lining up for the opening tip. It's a fair and equal beginning to a game. A coin toss would certainly take all of that excitement away.

As a coach, I don't think it's great at all. It's important to understand the HUGE range between levels of experience and ability in high school ball. If we're to be teaching as coaches, and we have very inexperienced teams (as I do right now), it's incredibly valuable to have those two extra "full time-outs" that come from the quarter breaks.

"Nearest Spot" related to teams basket
 

I would change the definition of the nearest spot by adding language that made it nearest relative to that team's basket. Then when the ball is advanced in the backcourt, but still within the top of the opponent's key, we would take it out on the side and not go back to the baseline. Seems like we may be putting a team at a disadvantage by going backwards.

I honestly don't know what you can teach a teenager to due in two min. However, I would love to know your secret as I have two teenagers in my home:eek:. We need all the help we can get!! I am sure the faculty at your local institutions of higher learning would love this method as well.:)

What do you mean? Time-outs having been a parenting tool for a while now. :p

Not in my house.
Warn once, then whack.

Is that how your wife keeps you in line?

Yes.

So...when you...:eek:...

Never mind.

Thank you. :eek:

Not much, but more than I can in zero minutes. Mostly, I can calm them down and help them focus on one key point to improve.

Sorry, I've been trying to channel my inner Jurassic. Padgett's ghost got in the way.

Once they can drive good luck!

If I Were Emporer/King/Dictator For A Day!!
 

Where do I begin, oh where do I begin. :D


Rule Change 1a: I would abolish, at all levels (NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA), that abomination of the game called Alternating Possession. I would go back to "The Ancient Days" when everything was good and right in the game.


Rule Change 1b: I would abolish, at all levels (NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA) the shot clock. The way the game is played now in the NBA, it seens like there was more scoring in the early pre-shot clock days of the NBA.


Rule Change 2: I would replace all of the different types of technical fouls in the NCAA Men's/Women's Rules with the NFHS types. Keep It Simple Stupid!!


Rule Change 3: 1 + 1, for Common Fouls when the Team Foul totals are 7, 8 and 9; two (2) free throws, for Common Fouls when the Team Foul totals are 10, 11 and 12; and three (3) free throws, for Common Fouls when the Team Foul totals are 13 and greater. I will elaborate on this change if others would like an explanation.


Rule Change 4: Get rid of the stupid "circle under the basket rule" in the NBA/WNBA and its abomination in the NCAA Men's.


Rule Change 5: Allow a player to request timeout (see NBA/WNBA and NCAA Men's/Women's) while going out of bounds. If a team wants to burn a timeout, let them.


These are just a few of my favorite things.

Have fun with them.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I am not officiating the rest of December, I did something to my left knee last week while officiating so I am going to rest in hopes that I do not have to see an orthopedic surgeon.

Many say that this invention saved the NBA, as it had problems attracting fans (and television coverage) before its inception.[2] This was largely due to the stalling tactics used by teams once they were leading in a game (killing the clock). Without the shot clock, teams could pass the ball nearly endlessly without penalty. If one team chose to stall, the other team (especially if behind) would often commit fouls to get the ball back following the free throw.

Very low-scoring games with many fouls were common, boring fans. The most extreme case occurred on November 22, 1950, when the Fort Wayne Pistons defeated the Minneapolis Lakers by a record-low score of 19-18. A few weeks later, the Rochester Royals and Indianapolis Olympians played a six-overtime game with only one shot in each overtime. The NBA tried several rule changes in the early 1950s to speed up the game and reduce fouls before eventually adopting Biasone's idea.

According to Biasone, "I looked at the box scores from the game I enjoyed, games where they didn't screw around and stall. I noticed each team took about 60 shots. That meant 120 shots per game. So I took 48 minutes - 2,880 seconds - and divided that by 120 shots. The result was 24 seconds per shot."[3]

When the shot clock first came into play, it made many players so nervous that the clock hardly came into play, as players were taking fewer than 20 seconds to shoot. According to Syracuse star Dolph Schayes, "We thought we had to take quick shots - a pass and a shot was it - maybe 8-10 seconds...But as the game went on, we saw the inherent genius in Danny's 24 seconds - you could work the ball around for a good shot."[3]

The shot clock, together with some rule changes concerning fouls, immediately revolutionized NBA basketball. In the last pre-clock season, teams averaged 79 points per game. In the first year with the clock (1954-55), the average was up to 93 points; by the fourth year (1957-58), it was 107 points


snopes.com: Origins of the 24-Second Shot Clock

And currently the lowest scoring NBA team is averaging roughly 89 PPG.

ya I am reluctant to call the Nets an NBA team.

My point is, for the most part, scoring is up since the invention of the shot clock.

It makes for a much better pace to the game.

Let's Not All Do This At Once, We Could Overload And Shut Down the Forum
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Thanks for the warning. Now if I could just figure out how to get this ignore feature to work?

It's That Important To Me ..
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Good luck. Get better soon.

I'm trying to avoid taking time off with a plantar fasciitis problem. I'm using arch supports, a sleeping brace, a stretching device, a foot massager, and aspirin before and after games. I don't work a lot of off season basketball, so I've really been looking forward to this upcoming season, and I don't need any health problems keeping me off the court.

Maybe We'll Go Back To Peach Baskets Too ???
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: So you would have a jump ball after every basket, just like when you first started officiating?

"What time is tipoff?" Keep the jump ball start for tradition's sake.

I am a big fan of only dead ball TO requests by the coach. The kids know the coach's voice from practice. They show be able to signal the request to the officials. But no live ball TO requests? No. The ball is live at the disposal of the thrower-in and often requests will come late in the count. Same thing with pressure in the backcourt.

Make delay entering the court after a throw-in a violation instead of a technical foul.

Go to 3-2-1 scoring on field goals.

Change the FT lane to the FIFA trapezoid or a small semi-circle and treat it just like the current two point area of the court, only make shots taken from there worth only a single point. The court would now have three areas with point values of 1, 2, and 3 for goal made from therein.

This would return the value of the mid-range jumpshot to the game and the overemphasis on dunks and big guys would be greatly reduced. The game of basketball should be about skill, not just sheer size. It sickens me to see people being handed so much money in our society simply because they are tall or large, yet don't have any real talent or skills.

That would be an interesting idea, however shouldn't half-court shots be made 4 points? Especially since not everyone can make these shots?

Use NCAA Timing rules (2 halves). For Boys', use the new NCAA-M 3-pt. line.

Iowa
 

I do not remember the Girls' Union ever attempting to implement the shot clock. I can only imagine the melees this would cause with the table crews and officials in the state. The schools would also hide behind the initial cost of the setup if this was ever brought up for discussion.

The Girls' Union is allowing the teams to play two sixteen minute halves in non-conference games in both coaches agree. Each conference can adopt this change, if every school agrees. I have heard of a few schools experimenting with this change but I have not been involved in any high school game playing two halves. I would vote for the change to eliminate the quarter break during each half.

The Girls' Union did require a coin toss during my short officiating career. I worked a junior high travel-ball tournament during that time with a team from Minneapolis playing a team from Kansas City. We were using NFHS rules with the Iowa adaptations. At the captain's meeting I asked the visiting team (on the scoreboard) to call the coin toss. She looked at me and asked "are you f@cking kidding me?" My first response was, "I wish I was."

If I heard a girl in junior high respond that way during a captains meeting, I would be too stunned to speak.

How do you not call this T?
I worked plenty of those tourneys when I was there, and that would have been a quick one.

"Never mind the coin toss."
Indirect to the coach, two shots, ball. Much easier that way.

I thought that we granted an exception when the person is correct. ;)

Careful: you'll talk BillyMac out of the coin toss.

Jerome Bettis Rule?
 

If the girl changed her mind or the referee "mis-heard" her call - correctable error? ;)

1. Allow referees to correct "wrong team" throw in errors (i.e. Team A awarded the ball for a throw in following a time out when Team B should have been awarded the ball) UNTIL a change of possession. While on the topic of correctable errors, modify the heck out of the current rule. If a team SCORES when an FT should have been awarded, the basket ENDS the time of correcting the error. If FTs are shot at the WRONG BASKET, that is NOT CORRECTABLE (both baskets should be 10' high, both FT lines should be at 15' and wind should not be a factor). If the team that got fouled is not on the ball enough to know that a foul is an FT shooting situation (or the defensive team is not aware in the case of fouling a poor FTer), that is not correctable, either.

2. Change the definition of "Closely Guarded" to actually being "closely guarded" -- i.e. Change the rule to THREE FEET instead of SIX FEET.

3. Do not charge a technical foul if a team only returns four players to the court following a time out. If a team wants to play short, let them. Similarly, if a team wishes to play 4v4 when the opponent only has 4 eligible players, let them. Why not allow a team to commit a "sporting act"? Forcing such teams to play with 5 if they have 5 is silly.

4. Change delaying coming back onto the court into a violation to match leaving the court and coming back onto the court.

5. Allow players to enter the lane on release on FTs. I have NEVER understood why there is a differentiation on certain 15 foot shots (FTs) force everyone to stand still until the ball hits, while other 15 foot shots, rebounders can kill each other (within the displacement rules of the game)BEFORE the release.

6. Modify the backcourt violation rules to restore the purpose of the division line (i.e. to prevent a team from delaying the game by using the entire 84/94 foot court instead of just half of it). First of all, eliminate the last-touch-first-touch violation by stating that PLAYER CONTROL must be established in the front court after a ball is tipped by the defense. Secondly, eliminate the throw-in exceptions to the backcourt violation rules. Until a player has BOTH FEET AND THE BALL IN THE FRONT COURT, the player shall be considered to be in the backcourt -- regardless whether the ball is tipped/not tipped on the inbounds pass. As a result, a player who jumps from the frontcourt to the backcourt to catch the ball would NOT be called for an "over and back" violation when, in fact, the BALL has never PASSED the division line.

7. Eliminate the "No long switch" mechanic in three man -- it actually slows the game down. It must have been created by a plump referee not desiring to run.

8. I rather like Nevada's idea on concentric circles for 1s, 2s and 3s. Perhaps a semicircle at 6 feet and another at the International distance. The short to midrange jump shot is almost gone from the game. While backdoor cut lay-ups are a thing of beauty, stopping at the six foot mark for a shot off the glass would be great, too. For FTs three defenders would be allowed inside the 6' arc for rebounding and the shooting team would be allowed two rebounders between the semicircles (FT shooter would be the third rebounder). The other four players would be outside the 3 point arc. Players can step in on release.

9. I like MTD's rule regarding 3 FTs at foul 13 and beyond, except NO bonus free throws until the 8th foul, 2 shots at the 10th foul and 3 shots at the 12th foul.

10. I like JRut's suggestion on the coaching box with a slight modification. Coaches would be able to COACH anywhere from 10' from the division line to the baseline, but there would be a "complaint box" that is 14' wide. If the coach is outside the "complaint box" and argues, automatic "T", but he can COACH anywhere he would like.

11. Continue to compile ALL relevant situations and case plays that are still in effect EACH YEAR in a single document (Case Book). ONLY delete such plays from the case book when a rule change makes them no longer valid. HIGHLIGHT all NEW CASEPLAYS in the Case Book as is done with the Rules Book.

12. Make BillyMac's "Most Misunderstood Rules" mandatory reading for ALL NFHS Head and Assistant Coaches (with an online test following).

13. Mandate fitness tests for referees at each level (BOYS MS, FR, JV, V and GIRLS MS, FR, JV and V -- yes, there is a BIG difference in requirements).

14. Play 2 halves, but give the coaches one extra time out each. Close games would last as long, but most other games would be shortened by a couple minutes.

15. ALL rules (such as the OHSAA 6th quarter in a day technical) MUST be in the NFHS Rules Book OR a NFHS Rules Addendum Book that would have ALL States exceptions listed in it by State.

Me No Likey.....
 

While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.

My $.02.

Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.

Don't like this at all. As long as officials consistently enforce the six foot guarding rule we have no need for a shot clock. Very good defense can be played at 3-6 feet without requiring over playing.

I don't see a lot of benefit from this, and it requires some level of judgement. You'd still have a jumping from frontcourt to backcourt violation if the ball is tipped in the frontcourt, then caught in the air by a player who left his frontcourt and landed in the backcourt. Much ado about nothing, IMO.

This, IMO, would be a nightmare to officiate. A lot of shots are taken at around six feet with a lot of players in the vicinity when it happens. It's one more line to watch. And rewarding teams for getting good looks at the basket from five feet should be rewarded the same as seven.

Penalize a coach when he deserves to be penalized. Arbitrary lines shouldn't rule a coach's conduct.

I like these two suggestions. I believe waiting for the ball to hit rather than entering on the release creates incentive to "crash" hard rather than having time to work for position.

Halves work for me, and the extra TO makes up for a loss in coaching time. Let coaches decide when they need the break, and get rid of two last-second shot/hold the ball opportunities per game.

A teenage girl changing her mind is not a correctable error situation, it's just standard operating procedure. ;)

True Dat!
 

Juulie may not be happy with this one........

The whole shooting at the wrong basket thing never made sense to me either. If the kid makes the free throw, count it. If he misses, don't give him another try.Three feet is pretty close quarters. I'm afraid grunewar is right on this one. Forcing the defense to come in closer is not desirable.

If we ever do adopt a shot clock, I'd prefer to simply do away with the closely guarded count entirely. At the very least strip it down to the current NCAA-W rule.Agreed. If you can't get all your players back on the court after a TO, they wait at the table for the next opportunity to sub. However, still a T if they come running onto the court after the ball is in play.Agreed. Hope springs eternal on this, the NFHS has recently shown a willingness to acknowledge that not every undesirable behavior is worthy of the nuclear option.Why not allow them into the lane once the ball is at the shooter's disposal? I'm not being sarcastic, if the debate is over what magical moment is the right one, why not set it to be at a time that makes officiating free throws easier?I rather like this idea. Empirical evidence (i.e., the sheer number of threads started on this very topic) clearly indicates this is the most difficult rule to understand and apply correctly. As currently written it's got a big "gotcha" factor to it in situations that have nothing to do with the original intent of the rule.It is an interesting idea. But it would then be some other game and not basketball.Free throws take too long as it is. But the idea of an escalating penalty for team fouls has merit. How about after 12 we award one point and continue to shoot only two?Two thoughts. I prefer the college rule. The problem is rarely that the coach is too far towards the baseline, it's that the coach is too far towards midcourt. Taking away the box for a T is both juvenile and sometimes creates a more difficult situation because now we have to police it. The "complaint box" idea is just silly.Agreed. In this age of online access, they don't need to print and distribute the entire volume either. They could continue to publish the existing book, which would serve as the Reader's Digest version of the "big book". The big book would be available online.Lots of states already require coaches to take a rules test. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it's common for coaches to share the answers and never actually "take" the test. My preference would be a proctored exam. It's not like schools don't have the facilities in place to do this.This merits a discussion all its own.The longer I do this, the more I favor just playing halves.Too much bother. Too un-American ;)

I think maybe we [and I include myself] should employ resumption of play procedures more often. Would take too many lost possessions or easy baskets for opponents to have coaches get there teams on the floor in a timely manner after a timeout has run its course.

[QUOTE=grunewar;643690]While I understand your point, I would not be in favor of this.

I ref alot of FB/JVB Ball and some V Ball.

One of the reasons I find V Ball so much easier to officiate is because they understand how, and appreciate more, playing defense from six feet. The younger defenders get right up on the offensive players and this causes alot of fouls, play stopages, and foul shooting = longer games.

By forcing defenders closer to the offensive players, I think this would make it worse, vice better.


Would you be saying you need to be more or less fit to do a two-man JVB game than three-man V game? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

First of all, we would not be "forcing" the defenders anywhere. At the same time, for anyone who has played basketball, SIX FEET hardly causes an offensive player to sweat!!! The six foot rule also causes much inconsistency since some officials flat out will NOT start a count until a defender is 3 to 4 feet. I would be fine with 4 feet. But, SIX FEET is not going to be consistently called as it is just too far away.

This is not about forcing a defender's position, but it should be about TRULY PLAYING DEFENSE. If you are six feet away, you are not preventing an entry pass, a skip pass or a shot. About the only thing you may be able to prevent is a drive. REMEMBER: closely guarded applies only to the ball, therefore this has no effect on the way helpside or denial defense is taught. As for the length of the game, closely guarded positioning has no bearing in my mind.

As for fitness, I should add that a separate level should exist for FR/JV 2-person and 3-person. In Central Ohio most HS games are 3-man regardless of level. Girls are usually 2-person as are city league and catholic league. Most of the rest are all 3-person.

6 ft is not a great distance. Spread your arms. That is 6 feet unless you are Wilt's offspring. No need to change that unless there is a shot clock.

Big difference between "great distance" and "closely guarded". If you are holding the ball with your toes on the top of the circle and the defender is standing with a toe over the free throw line, I still maintain that this is NOT being closely guarded.

Similar to several other rules that do not get tightly called by the book due to the penalty involved -- such as the technical foul for not re-entering the court on a throw-in, I have seen numerous colleagues NOT start a closely guarded count until the defender gets within 3 to 4 feet. Hence, the reason it is a point of emphasis. I maintain, it would be easier to get consistency by going to a three to four foot rule.

We also don't always start a 3 second count the instant a player touches the lane line - should we change this to a 1.5 second count?

Coach, I don't see how changing it to 3 or 4 feet would increase consistency. It just gives us a different distance to interpret.

6 ft is 6 ft and because colleagues are setting aside a rule doesn't make it right. It just leads to, "The refs weren't calling that last game". The rules committee has a cross section of members and they determined that 6 ft is closely guarded. That is when I begin my counts. I am not going to change my view on this unless the rule changes.

The not entering after a throw-in was actually on the NFHS survey this past spring. Hopefully, they do change the penalty. They did not a few years back because of the penalty for other delays returning to the court, however, that could be covered as an exception or note and leave the T penalty in place for not coming back on the floor after a time-out for example.

I agree with this.

I still work a fair amount of 2-person. Last night the winning team went into a four corner with about 3 minutes left, up 20. The defense stayed with the ball handler and I worked harder as the trail in those next two minutes than I did all night. I was frequently in the backcourt getting angles, across the court getting angles, down to the free throw line getting angles. Counting pretty much the entire time.

It drives me crazy watching officials not work closely guarded situations well when they are on ball. Getting good angles and properly counting are part of the gig.

Since many of us follow the rule as written, we should simply change to the new rule while the non-conformers at 6 feet would likely conform at 4 feet. This is where the increase in consistency would originate as it is currently 6 feet for some and 3 to 4 feet for others.

If it stays at 6 feet, I would prefer to change the wording to "guarded" count because it is certainly not "closely guarded" at that distance -- especially for the jr. high players and below.

You are agreeing with my point just coming to a different conclusion. Due to the fact that MANY OFFICIALS do NOT consider "closely guarded" to be at 6 feet, they DO NOT start their count. Then, the next game, we have an official who calls it at 6 feet and "bang" we have inconsistency.

I am one who calls it as the rule states, but DISAGREE with the rule as a matter of logic and experience. MANY disagree with the rule and therefore call it as they (and I) would prefer to see it -- at four feet or being "close" to the ballhandler. This leads to more inconsistencies than we should have.

In our BV game the other night, my partners and I were starting the count (quite visibly, might I add) when appropriate by rule. A coach just about jumped out of his skin when one of my partners called a 5-count on his point guard. I was the lead and did not see that action out top, but the coach did say "well that certainly wasn't closely guarded last Saturday night."

By the way, I would advocate not charging a T for the violating the time out rule as well -- simply allowing them to play with four entil the next substitution opportunity. Playing short should be penalty enough. Of course, ENTERING the court during play (without being beckoned) would still constitute a T as it is now.

Just a thought, but regarding the 6' "closely"-guarded count:

Instead of changing the rules to conform to officials who do not follow them, how about changing the officials to conform to the rules?

We all have opinions about what rules are good, and what needs to be changed. But there is no way I would bring those personal opinions with me out on the floor - the current rules, as written, should be enforced at all times. For those officials that think their way of enforcing the rules is better than what's written should be publicly flogged.

That's what I would do if I was king. (Oh, that and include a cheerleading crew just for the officials.)

This is brilliant! I also need a massage between games...