Another suggested FED rule change

[DesMoines]

1) I'd love to go to halves, but I'm not sure why. Probably just two fewer "Ok coach, first horn... let's go..." may be reason enough.

2) No shot clock, please - I'm with BNR on this one. Administration for sub-varsity would be a nightmare. Half the time the kids running the clock/book now have to be reminded to stay the heck off their cell phones during the game... even during time outs. "These are extra opportunities to double check that you match up, not to text your sweetie." Which usually garners an eye-roll, but generally stops the problem.

3) For TXAggie: How about a 10-second runoff in the last minute (like football) for a running clock infraction?

4) Going back to the release would make it easier to focus on rebounding action.
Would the shooter and those behind the arc still have to hold for the rim or is everybody free?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

1) I'd love to go to halves, but I'm not sure why. Probably just two fewer "Ok coach, first horn... let's go..." may be reason enough.

From an officiating and fan POV halves have more of a flow to them that do quarters. Two less opportunities for coaches to "play for the last shot"

Two less shot no shot decisions and scoring should increase a tad because the game is uninterrupted two less times.

[IowaMike]

1.) I would prefer 16 minute halves too; it would keep the game going and enhance continuity in my opinion. I don't know why some folks suggest 18 minute halves; high school games are 32 minutes long and I see no reason to lengthen them to 36 minutes.

2.) I would love to do away with the one and one on free throws too; once you get to seven fouls in a half it's two shots.

3.) I don't know what you could do about trailing teams fouling late in games. It is a pain sometimes but I don't really consider it a problem. I suppose we could go to the old NBA three to make two in the final two minutes of games; that would at least make fouling down the stretch less rewarding for the trailing team, although it could also penalize the team that is leading if they commit a foul. I'd be inclined to do nothing about this.

4.) I understand that they are trying to clean up physical play on free throws with the current rule, but I would be in favor of entering the lane on release. If they get too physical call a foul. Call it tight from the start of the game and they will clean it up on the free throw rebounding action.

5.) I'm really sick of being the uniform police; jewelry is pretty easy to enforce, don't wear it. I personally don't give a rats behind what style or color of headband/wristband a kid wears and don't think the Fed should either. Undershirts I understand, they are part of the uniform and in my opinion should be the same color as the jersey if they show. I think all of that crap about the size, color, manufacturers logo etc on sweatbands is a waste of time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

4.) I understand that they are trying to clean up physical play on free throws with the current rule, but I would be in favor of entering the lane on release. If they get too physical call a foul. Call it tight from the start of the game and they will clean it up on the free throw rebounding action.

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

+1 And that is why they have made changes such as:

taking away 2 lane spaces

moving players out one space

further defining the 3 ft deep lane space

ruling that one foot must be near the lane line

Call the violations and the violations will stop.

[IowaMike]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that is that officials didn't call fouls the last time it was that way. Why would you think it would be any different if they went back to it?

I could make the same argument about enforcement under the current rules; a lot of officials allow far too much leeway and won't call violations for entering the lane early. Make it a point of emphasis and put the onus on the officials to enforce it; that's our job. It's in our best interest to clean up that kind of activity anyway; makes the game a lot better to officiate. I just don't see it as a problem. If you have lousy officials who don't do their job, I guess they won't get as much work.

[Mark Padgett]

Ya' know - perhaps a POE for next year should be to call intentional fouls properly at the end of games.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Ya' know - perhaps a POE for next year should be to call intentional fouls properly at the end of games.

I called exactly one intentional foul at the end of the game this season. And it was a player who reached out and grabbed the player by the waist from behind.

Maybe things are broken at your level, but I get the first foul and I have no problems with end of game fouling.

[Rock Chalk]

Have worked in Minnesota for the past 10 years. We went to 18 minute halves a few years ago and I enjoy it. It was different the first year but once everybody got used to it, it seems to work well. It caused games to have a greater flow.

I would like to see them give teams a 15 minute warm up instead of 20. Kids are loose and don't need 20 minutes to warm up. Officials don't need to be on the court until 10 minutes left. Have your meeting at 7 minutes and go from there.

I think they should go back to the rule where time outs can only be called from the players during a live ball. Would make things much easier.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

I could make the same argument about enforcement under the current rules; a lot of officials allow far too much leeway and won't call violations for entering the lane early. Make it a point of emphasis and put the onus on the officials to enforce it; that's our job. It's in our best interest to clean up that kind of activity anyway; makes the game a lot better to officiate. I just don't see it as a problem. If you have lousy officials who don't do their job, I guess they won't get as much work.

Maybe so, but the effect on the game is in the direction desired by the NFHS. A little early but still not rough vs. still a little early and rough.

[REFANDUMP]

I would be in favor of going to the 18 minute halves like they do in Minnesota. I have worked some games there, and find the games have a better flow than games with quarter breaks. If they decided to go 16, I would be fine with that as well.

I agree about going back to players leaving on the release of a free throw. I never thought there was a problem officiating these plays, and we have too many officials who don't make this call anyway.

I would like to see a 45 second shot clock in high school basketball. I don't think we should take a coach's opportunity to slow the game down out of the equation, but also don't think we should allow a team to sit on the ball for minutes at a time. I think that's part of the issue with the fouling at the end of games, as that's the only option the defense has to try and get the ball back since there's no shot clock.

I've seen a lot of good ideas posted here, and thought I'd throw in my two cents.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I agree about going back to players leaving on the release of a free throw. I never thought there was a problem officiating these plays, and we have too many officials who don't make this call anyway.

It makes more sense to me, if you're going to assume officials will miss calls, to allow them to miss violations rather than to set them up to miss rebounding fouls.

I've got no problem going back, but I see no reason to think officials will make calls now that they weren't making 25 years ago.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

1.) I suppose we could go to the old NBA three to make two in the final two minutes of games

I've long thought that this would help clean things up considerably.

As for half v. quarters, I's probably a voice in the wilderness, but I think it changes the complexion of the game, and not necessarily for the better.

first, some jurisdictions use quarters played as a way to determine how someone can "swing" from JV to varsity. Many places apparently have the rule that yhou can play in four quarters between V and JV. With halfs, ito even get garbage time at the end of the V game, the kid would have to sit for half the JV contest, rather than just for one quarter. With quarters, a sophomore who is good enough to sit on varsity bench, but not good enough to play half the game or more can play most of the JV game and get in for a small portion of the V tilt. I think it helps develop players.

The other impact would be on coaches ability to get some free rest for the studs between Q3 and Q4. Very few coaches are smart enough to do it (very few coaches are smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time for that matter), but subbing out the stud with :30 left in the third can get him or her a few minutes or real time rest, resulting in a fourth quarter with less need to be subbed out

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

1) I'd love to go to halves, but I'm not sure why. Probably just two fewer "Ok coach, first horn... let's go..." may be reason enough.

2) No shot clock, please - I'm with BNR on this one. Administration for sub-varsity would be a nightmare. Half the time the kids running the clock/book now have to be reminded to stay the heck off their cell phones during the game... even during time outs. "These are extra opportunities to double check that you match up, not to text your sweetie." Which usually garners an eye-roll, but generally stops the problem.

3) For TXAggie: How about a 10-second runoff in the last minute (like football) for a running clock infraction?

4) Going back to the release would make it easier to focus on rebounding action.
Would the shooter and those behind the arc still have to hold for the rim or is everybody free?

Back when I played, everyone behind the arc still had to hold for the rim or backboard. I believe that's how the rule is currently written for NCAA and NBA (not enforced, but written).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Back when I played, everyone behind the arc still had to hold for the rim or backboard. I believe that's how the rule is currently written for NCAA and NBA (not enforced, but written).

That is the rule for NCAA, but I believe the NBA rule is different. I hope someone with definite knowledge will chime in, but I think there is some quirk that allows 1 player to enter on the release? Or maybe it's only under certain circumstances? I know there are plays where a player can get the momentum to enter the lane with a head start if they time it right, and there are highlights of good dunks after such a rebound.