soapbox time - my favorite rule change

[Mark Padgett]

Now that the regular season is over, it's time to think of proposed rule changes for the future. One I have been lobbying for the past few years concerns technical fouls.

I don't often think the NBA's rules are more equitable than those of the NF, but in this case, I do. I'm not referring to giving two shots vs. one shot, I'm talking about including possession as part of the penalty.

The reason this is not equal is that it penalizes a team more when they are on offense than when they are on defense. If an offensive player is called for a technical, they lose two shots and possession. If a defensive player is called for a technical, they lose only the two shots, since they didn't have possession in the first place. Why should there be more of an expectation for a team to behave when they have the ball?

In the NBA, they view a technical foul as a foul for some action that takes place outside the normal play of the game. I agree. They "freeze" the game, take care of the technical, then resume the game where they left off. This seems eminently logical to me.

I know that some say it prevents the defense from committing a technical to force free throws so they would then get possession afterward if they get the rebound, but this is the same thing that happens if they commit a regular foul (in the bonus). Well, that's basketball. There's no guarantee they would get the ball. Remember, a technical foul is a serious thing and a player couldn't do this more than twice. Maybe we should have some limit on the number of technicals a team could have for the game.

The only other argument I have heard to this is that this way, we don't have to remember who had the ball when we called the T. I don't buy that. We remember who had the ball when we call an injury timeout, when we have an inadvertent whistle (I meant when YOU do, I NEVER do) or coming out of a timeout.

Comments please.

BTW - I also would support a rule change moving the coaching box to the parking lot

[Schmidt MJ]

Here's a possible rule change at the HS level and below for a Technical, that I heard a coach suggest at our rules meeting this past year. First of all let me say that I'm sure there will be alot of objections to this but I thought it was an interesting idea to propose. When a player is called for a T, simply award the opposing team 2 pts and the ball. Here is the reasoning for this: At the HS level and below, putting a player at the line all by himself for 2 FT's may make him more nervous than normal, especially if there are several hundred pairs of eyes staring at him. The player shooting the FT's has done nothing wrong, yet if he misses the FT's then he feels like he has let everyone down. In addition, if he misses the FT's then the opposing team has, in effect, not been penalized.
Comments +/-.

[Bart Tyson]

I don't like GIVING points. Players have to learn to handle disappointment. FT's are missed throughout the game. The T(2shots and ball) doesn't matter to me if the rule changed or stays the same. However, I do believe on double fouls the ball should stay with the team in control.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
If an offensive player is called for a technical, they lose two shots and possession. If a defensive player is called for a technical, they lose only the two shots, since they didn't have possession in the first place. Why should there be more of an expectation for a team to behave when they have the ball?

BTW - I also would support a rule change moving the coaching box to the parking lot

---

Mark,

I don't entirely disagree with your reasoning, although the "threat" of losing the ball would certainly seem to provide some additional incentive for behaving properly. Plus, there are some "T's"--namely, non-unsporting T's--that perhaps should have less penalty than others (but that's a whole 'nuther can-of-worms), and perhaps retaining the ball in such cases makes sense. There are, of course, situations where a T could be called when neither team has possession (loose ball, during a shot, etc.). Who gets the ball then? (I assume the NBA has a way of dealing with that; I just don't know what it is.)

As far as the coaches box, I'd rather not see it extended to the parking lot, or even to the baseline as in college. I don't need some of these NCAA wanna-bees standing next to me on the baseline giving me a piece of their mind. At the same time, I do think the 6-foot limit is pretty restrictive. I'd support doubling it to 12 feet, or so.

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker:
Mark,


As far as the coaches box, I'd rather not see it extended to the parking lot, or even to the baseline as in college. I don't need some of these NCAA wanna-bees standing next to me on the baseline giving me a piece of their mind. At the same time, I do think the 6-foot limit is pretty restrictive. I'd support doubling it to 12 feet, or so.

---

Todd - I didn't say we should EXTEND the coaching box. I said we should MOVE it to the parking lot. Maybe the coaches could have the parking concession so they could fund their camps instead of making players pay to go so they can get picked for the team next year.



------------------

[Alligator Bag]

I have always thought the restrictions with the coaches box was a benefit to weaker officials. If a coach is at the baseline giving you an earful and it is too much, take care of business. Most good coaches know where the line is and know when they have crossed it. Give them the NCAA box and if we T up the offenders when deserved, we will have less problems and not so much to worry about whether they are chirping in the box or not. Remember fellow officials, TCOB.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Todd - I didn't say we should EXTEND the coaching box. I said we should MOVE it to the parking lot

---

Oh . . . you got me!