Rule change thread - for real, this time

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[26 Year Gap]

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.

[Mrcrash3]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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.

+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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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.

[Rich]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[ref3808]

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

[wyo96]

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)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[eyezen]

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

[just another ref]

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.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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.