Rule change thread - for real, this time
 

OK - usually the desired NF change that gets the most support here is only allowing players on the court to request and be granted a timeout. Another, although it doesn't seem to get as much support, is having an exception to have team control after the ball becomes live on a throw-in. This would mean inbounding the ball from the front court into the back court (which is now allowed) would be a violation. Also, inbounding the ball in the front court, having it deflected (without establishing player control and therefore team control) into the back court by a teammate then having it recovered by a member of that same team, would also be a violation, which it is not now.

One I have mentioned in the past would be to do away with the automatic possession by a team that just shot technical fouls. I would support going to POI after the two (and I support leaving it at two) shots. My "argument" is based on having this part of a technical foul (shooting team gets possession) penalizes a team that was on offense more than it penalizes a team that was on defense for getting a technical. A team on offense loses two shots and possession while a team on defense loses only two shots, since they didn't have possession in the first place. I don't think there should be a difference in the severity of the penalty based on whether a team had the ball or not.

I remember someone - I think it was Camron - had an "argument" against this change. I think it was based on something to do with who usually got rebounds on missed free throws (not during a technical, of course) or something like that, in which he said there really wasn't a harsher penalty against the offensive team. I don't really remember since it was more than two minutes ago.

OK guys - let's go.

Time-outs requested by players only on a live ball would be very popular among officials, but getting the genie back in the bottle would be difficult.

I hope that, finally, players not returning directly to the court immediately after a throw-in would result in a violation.

I am fine with the T penalty in HS remaining the same. Unsporting conduct should carry a more severe penalty. And if a team is disadvantaged disproportionately, then they can be PO'd at the offender.

I think it would be better to go with the NCAA version, which is to have team control on a throw-in, but also have the same exception which allows the play in blue to still be legal. This would also allow us to call team-control fouls on throw-ins as well.

Mark, your play in red should still not be a violation either way, because the throw-in is coming from OOB, not the front court. Remember, it is not considered the front court unless the ball is actually inbounds; it does not matter where the ball is located OOB.

I wouldn't have a problem with this either. I think the reasoning behind the NCAA going this route was to make the penalty a little less so officials would be more likely to make the call.

I have no problem with the head coach being able to request timeouts.

I do wish it was a technical foul, however, for coaches to assume that their timeout request at any time in any situation must be heard or they feel the can throw a crack at the officials who might have something else keep their attention for a split second or two.

All of my proposed changes would be on the mechanics side of the house and have no chance of passing.

Please don't tell us you want mechanics for reaching and over-the-back fouls. Gee, maybe we should add one for the "up and down" violation. ;)

Time out requests during a live ball must come from players.

two rules - one mechanic
 

Rule 1: I would like to see the arrow switch when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower. Would make it uniform when there was a foul or violation that the Team throwing "used" the arrow.

Rule 2: I agree that team possession should be established when at the disposal of the thrower. Just like the "flow" this creates and would be easier to administer. (keeping the BC exceptions as described above.

Mechanic: Two hand reporting of player numbers. I had the opportunity to work at the table for close to 48 games over two weekends, since our HS hosted the 2A and 3A regional tourneys and a few of the officials must work some women’s games and they would report with two hands. Made it MUCH easier for the table help to know who the foul was on in a loud gym or if the official has "busy" figures. . ( BTW it was a GREAT great perspective for an official, I recommend you try working/sitting at the table for few games and you will have a greater appreciation for the challenges that part of the officiating team has to deal with)

Undershirts may not have sleeves which extend past the elbow.

Reasoning?

I would like to move the 20 minute warm up period to 15. Officals need to be on the court by 10 minutes on the clock and line-ups must be in with 7 minutes to play. Kids don't need the 20 minutes. In a decent amount of games this year we had teams walk to their bench the last 3 minutes and just sit and talk want wait for everything to start.

My wish would be a very minor mechanics change, instituting a mechanic for a hit to the head we can use while reporting a foul. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I think it would help with communication. The general, all purpose "hit" mechanic is sometimes just that, too general.

And one when one player suplexes another. And the "creeping death" foul, too.

No, I'd eliminate from the manual the silly stop clock on out of bounds violations and I'd have no problem with allowing more descriptive foul signals -- like hit to the head, trip, etc.

A foul signal for tripping would make sense. As would a pig pile signal for someone who jumps on a player when going after a loose ball.

+1

Comes up every year.......and makes sense every yr......

16 minute halves
timeout by players only during a live ball
team control on a throw in

Remove 4.19.8 C from the case book. Nobody would ever come to this conclusion on his own based on the applicable rules involved.

1. They are unnecessary as basketball is an indoor game.
2. Would match the current NCAA rule.

Sleeves above the elbow are necessary?

What's the difference between wearing 2 shooting sleeves under an undershirt with sleeves down too the elbow?

down and dirty:

If Team A is not awarded merited free throws and then Team A subsequently scores during the CE timeframe then the CE timeframe shall be deem terminated/expired.

Desired result: no more situations where Team A gets fouled, is not awarded merited free throws, Team A scores on subsenquent possession, then prior to next live ball CE is recognized, after which Team A is awarded free throws on top of the points Team A just scored.

+7
M&M, take note. I'm not alone.

Seriously, what's the big deal? I know 44.92% of all statistics are made up, but maybe one time out of ten, I called for a timeout before a player of mine was trapped, or was about to violate. The other 9 were OBVIOUS to the granting official, such as after a 8-0 run by the opponent.

Also, my rule change vote is for lane restrictions to end on the release of the last free throw.

+1 I don't believe this is getting called as a T,
So make it a violation and it should be called more...

Mechanic: fists to hips for a block instead of palms :)

Nothing. For the record, I'm against the wearing of arm/elbow sleeves as well, unless for an injury which is substantiated by documentation from a medical professional.

What about religious reasons?

Basketball is a religion. :D

Amen

Why? There is no fundamental basis for disallowing them.

And what is the difference between wearing a long sleeve undershirt vs. a short sleeve undershirt with arm/elbow sleeves....absolutely nothing aside from an arbitrary rule saying one is illegal.

Same thing for tights vs. compressions shorts, longish trucks, and really tall socks.

Some of these uniform rules have no reason to exsist aside from someone, somewhere in Nevada just not liking them.

That's not enough of a reason?

Uniform rules should be enforced by the home AD's who are automatically appointed as special Uniform Constables by the respective state offices. Let them worry about the enforcement and penalties, and let us stick to worrying about the game.

+1 No need for us to be Uniform Nazi's!!

That's ok, I'm sure Don Quixote had a side-kick too. :)

When a team is awarded an AP throw-in, it only makes sense the arrow switches when the throw-in is completed.

I like windmills too, just not enough to go tilting at them... :D

Makes more sense to me to consider that everything that happens once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower is the direct result of that. Obviously, the committee currently feels the AP grants an entire throw-in, which doesn't make sense to me. Grant them the ball to initiate the throw-in and switch it. It will have done it's job, IMO.

And then we gotta explain to a coach why he just lost the arrow when the other team kicked the ball before it was legally touched on the throw-in.

Any coach with an IQ higher than a kumquat is gonna be teaching his players to try and kick the ball every time when defending an an AP throw-in.

It doesn't really make sense to me to have a team gain an advantage by committing a violation. I'm with M&M.

Since I started this mess, I'll answer your question. Your proverbial coach is a moron, just as the coach who teaches his offensive players to foul under the current rule set just so the arrow doesn't switch. Under my proposal, there's no more advantage to kicking this ball than on any other throw in? Under the current rule, the punishment is stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in than on any other throw-in.

Current rule:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow which would have switched to his team now will not.

My proposal:
If a player kicks the ball on an AP throw-in, the arrow switches as it normally would have had the player not kicked the ball.

ok here we go
 

I know I will be more un popular than popular here..but...

I like the team control on throw ins change..with exceptions noted above.

I like switching the arrow when at the disposal.

I don't mind coaches calling time outs.....

I want to get rid of the coaching box.....ok now before all the applause....I mean I want to let them roam from the baseline to mid court...ok extend the box may be better. As long as they are coaching I really don't care where they are. If they are "coaching" me in an unsporting manner I really don't care where they are the deserve a T...so in essence the box really doesn't help us that much..

I also want to get rid of the seat belt...Just because they got a T doesn't mean they need to sit the rest of the game....again if they are coaching I really don't give a rats big behind...if they aren't they deserve a T whether sitting or standing....

Ok off the soap box, putting on the bullet proof attire

fire away LOL

Are you an ex-coach? :eek:

No Box
 

[QUOTE=cmathews;668568
I want to get rid of the coaching box.....ok now before all the applause....I mean I want to let them roam from the baseline to mid court...ok extend the box may be better. As long as they are coaching I really don't care where they are. If they are "coaching" me in an unsporting manner I really don't care where they are the deserve a T...so in essence the box really doesn't help us that much..

[/QUOTE]

Interesting....?? That would be more consistent with how it is called in our area. (by observation, whether this is right or wrong is for another thread)
The box has been a POE from Nationals and state for a while, and it is still not strictly, nor uniformly enforced.

I agree with these two.

How is the punishment stronger for kicking the ball on an AP throw-in versus a non-AP throw-in? :confused: In both cases, the non-violating team gets a repeat throw-in and the arrow doesn't change. Where's the difference?

And as written, under that proposal the team that committed the kicking violation will now get the arrow. And they now can commit a foul during the ensuing non-AP throw-in and not have to worry about losing the arrow either. And you don't think that's not gaining an unfair advantage by committing a violation?

And if you get another moronic coach in the last coupla minutes of a game who doesn't have the arrow or a DOG warning, what's your suggestion if that moronic coach instructs his defender to deliberately break the plane after the thrower gets the ball and the arrow has been switched? The throwing team gets a repeat throw-in but the moronic coach's team only gets the DOG warning and also gets the arrow. Isn't that also gaining an advantage by committing an illegal act?

Some of these moronic coaches are pretty smart. :D

Your logic escapes me, Snaqs.

I don't disagree with this one. Having such a small area doesn't make sense, in that it does not, by itself, improve sportsmanship. Why not give the coach the opportunity to coach their team without having to worry about exactly where they are standing (off the floor, of course).

This one I may still disagree. I could live with the argument that a coach should not be seatbelted after an administrative T, for example. But I still feel that, especially in HS sports, sportsmanship still needs to be a very important part of the game. Therefore, the penalty for an unsporting T should still carry the addtional weight of losing the box. Now, if I was king, I might even consider them losing the box for an unsporting act by a player, not even just bench personnel. In my own little world, I might allow them to keep the box as long as the player that received the T stayed on the bench. This would put more emphasis on a coach controling their players directly. (But, boy would I need a picture of a windmill to remind me how easy it would be to get something like that passed...)

Huh? :confused: Presently the box isn't lost due to an administrative T.

The throw-in, and thus the kicked ball, would never have happened had the AP throw-in not occurred. Everything that happens during the AP throw-in happens as a result of the AP throw-in and depends on whose arrow it is. This is why they should get the "opportunity" to make the throw-in, not the necessity that the throw-in be completed.

Some would argue that kicking the ball is good defense (thus the NCAA rule change of shot clock only resetting to 15, if necessary). The throw-in team had their chance to get the next possession, and they didn't unequitably lose it, they still have the next throw-in as well.

I'll keep playing.
JR, let me state it slightly differently.

AP throwin for A. After it's over, B will get the arrow. Under the current rule, if B1 kicks the ball before the throwin is over, B will not get the arrow. How is this not an added punishment for kicking the throwin pass?


No, because the arrow change is not a result of the violation or foul; it would have happened without them. It would be stupid to commit a violation for the sole purpose of causing something to happen that would have happened anyway; and there's no added advantage.

The problem is we're thinking of this completely differently. I see the arrow's job as completed as soon as the ball is handed to the thrower. I don't understand why the coach would need to commit the DOG just to get the arrow, it's going to switch anyway. Or is there another reason for committing the DOG violation and you think he should lose the next arrow if he does it on an AP throw-in?


I see that. :)

Well, crap, you're right. That's what I get for trying to hurry up and leave the office...

As I think about it, the times a coach loses the box is due to unsporting behavior of some kind. Ok, that stays...I'm actually advocating perhaps allowing a larger box, but make the coach responsible for all unsporting behavior, even on the court.

Well, actually, I don't like seat-belting the HC for a team member dunking in warm-ups. That needs to be changed to simply a direct T charged to the team member, no indirect to the HC.

We simply say that he lost the arrow when his team was given possession of the ball and that the kick and the arrow now have nothing to do with each other.

Why?? What possible advantage would they gain?

I'd like to see an editorial revision that a roster submitted to the scorer shall minimally consist of a first initial and a last name (similar to NFHS 3-1-3 in softball).

I wouldn't mind team control being changed ot match NCAA either.

Aside form that, I say don't change thing. :D

Why do you even want any part of their name? We only refer to players by number. We shouldn't even care if they have names. They could all be named "Hey You" for all I care. As long as the numbers are in the book, I'm fine with it.

Of course, we need to have recorded the HC and AC(s) names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers, debit card numbers, PINs, next of kin (for notification) and recorded I.Q.s (just for laughs).

Oh yeah - names and phone numbers of all team hot moms. :cool:

I agree with these two. I only work a handful of college games each year, but I like the coach being able to go down to the endline. I also don't like the seatbelt rule -- one, having to have an official address the coach after a T isn't productive, but the seatbelt rule forces this on us. Also, as soon as a coach gets whacked, it's over as far as I'm concerned. We should *all* go back to square one.

Our state treats the box as a "privilege". I find that ridiculous. It's part of the game. So are occasional technical fouls. Yawn.