Another suggested FED rule change

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[tref]

Correct, restrictions for all players end on the release in the League.

How else could Jordan come soaring thru to tip-jam BJ Armstrongs missed FT attempt

[walter]

Fed needs to mandate the 14 foot box. Texas will never go to it and the 6 foot box is worse than none at all. I WANT coaches to feel free to walk down their bench and address a player -- either to calm him or her down or to educate. Plus, we can now tell coaches (and admins) that the box is absolute -- its there on the court correctly marked or we don't use it. Get out of it, and you will be issued a T. Now, even I admit 6 feet is way too restrictive.

We use a 14 foot box now and it still doesn't work. Give 'em the college box (28' to the endline). It is real easy to see if they are out and then whack 'em. Works in college.

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

Correct, restrictions for all players end on the release in the League.

How else could Jordan come soaring thru to tip-jam BJ Armstrongs missed FT attempt

Correction...restrictions end for all players except for the free thrower. He must wait till the ball hits the basket.

[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.

[Drizzle]

Originally Posted by walter

Fed needs to mandate the 14 foot box. Texas will never go to it and the 6 foot box is worse than none at all. I WANT coaches to feel free to walk down their bench and address a player -- either to calm him or her down or to educate. Plus, we can now tell coaches (and admins) that the box is absolute -- its there on the court correctly marked or we don't use it. Get out of it, and you will be issued a T. Now, even I admit 6 feet is way too restrictive.

We use a 14 foot box now and it still doesn't work. Give 'em the college box (28' to the endline). It is real easy to see if they are out and then whack 'em. Works in college.

You beat me to it... Texas switched to the 14 foot box this past season. Of course, nobody marked it (not even at the state tournament) and there wasn't any pressure from up high to make them mark it so once again, nobody enforced the box.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Correction...restrictions end for all players except for the free thrower. He must wait till the ball hits the basket.

Players behind the three point arc?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Correction...restrictions end for all players except for the free thrower. He must wait till the ball hits the basket.

How about the backboard?