It's that time again - FED rule change discussion
 

OK - I'll start. Reduce by one, the number of non-shooting team members along the lane for free throws. That would give each team three players "close" to the basket for rebounds. Currently, the non-shooting team has two advantages - they occupy the two closest spots to the basket and they have one more player in close vicinity to the basket than the shooting team. I think one advantage is enough.

You can make the case that the shooting team has a big advantage (they are the only team that can score points on the free throws being taken) and it's fair to "balance it out" by giving the non-shooting team something in return, but remember - the non-shooting team did something wrong to cause the free throws in the first place so any "advantage" given back to them should be minimal.

OK - NEXT.....

On the topic of free throws, allow players to enter the lane on the release.

That's what happens when we mention Mr. Estevez.

Time outs !!
 

Only players can request a time out.

That's a pipe dream...will never happen.

+1

I'm in for entering on the release, and having just 5 in the lane.

When a held ball occurs near the end (TBD, but perhaps within the last 2 seconds) of the first three quarters, give the team with the arrow the option of inbounding the ball, or declaring the quarter over and starting the next quarter with the AP throw-in.

As it stands now, most held balls near the end of the quarter just mean "losing the arrow"

No way. Then you are depriving the defense a chance to steal the ball and convert or get fouled.

I don't understand the comment about players being the only ones to call timeouts

and I never understood changing the rule on the free throws to begin with. It seems to have had an effect of losing the art of boxing out to some extent because they rarely have to hold the box out for an extended period of time.

To your first point, there are certain situations where it's difficult to ascertain whether a timeout should be granted when it's the head coach requesting the timeout. For some, eliminating the right for the head coach to request a timeout would solve this problem since players would be forced to ask.

To your second point, I believe the rule change was made in an effort to decrease the amount of physical play during such action.

I can see that point on the timeouts. Thanks

and I just don't agree on the physical play with the freethrows. I view that aspect of the game a bit of a lost art and there's no real place to revive it as a result of that change.

Totally agree. This is one of the silliest rules that they changed years ago. Or at least only allow the request from the coach to be during a dead ball or when play is not active (hard when live and dead ball the attention of the official will still be on the court).

Peace

I like it.

Let's take it a step further, though. Should we start the quarter with 8:02 or 8:01 on the clock? (Nearly all clocks have this setting capability now.)

Not necessarily a rule change but what are your thoughts on giving the Trail official responsibility on free throws (either players along the lane or flight of the ball)? The Center official has to watch the free throw shooter, three players along the lane and the flight of the ball.

Good idea. Start it with a held ball, while you're at it. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that's the current mechanic? In which system? :confused:

Require scorekeeper to signal when a team has committed its sixth team foul of the half.

I admit, my desire to want to change this rule is a bit selfish as it would bring consistency to how it is called in my area. It seems to me that at the varsity level around here, there is a wide latitude given to players entering the lane and for all intents and purposes, they are already being allowed to enter on the release.

Love this one but there is no getting that genie back in the bottle.

Really? Wow. Not the case here. If it's too close to tell, we'll let it go, but no way they're going in on the release.

Well let me amend my previous statement a little.

From what I have seen and the people I've talked to, this seems to be the case.

Probably not, since coaches dominate the rules committee, and they probably won't willingly give up that power.

Maybe we could offer a trade.

We'll let them continue paying LA officials the same rate if they give up the right to request a TO during a live ball.

I thought the principals in LA were seeking the bottom of the market?

Crap, that means we'll have to get the principals to offer the coaches something to complete the three way trade. Any ideas?

Billy changed his login?

spammers have found the thread, and the only way to stop it seems to be to close the thread