Another suggested FED rule change
 

Here's one to consider and it would really change the game. Give teams in the bonus the option, when fouled, to shoot the free throws or just take a throw-in. This would stop all that ridiculous fouling by trailing teams at the end of a game. A minor point - it would also take away our need to decide if a foul in that situation was a "normal" foul or intentional, which can be a real pain.

I dont like it. Just adds one more thing that we would have to converse with them about...

Only if the clock is running.

Regarding the FT bonus rules; it isn't broken, IMO. I rarely see more than 2 or 3 of those fouls at the end of a close game before it either closes or gets beyond reach.

Ya' know, we're going to have a rules committee meeting soon for our local kids rec league. I might just bring this one up and see if there's any support. I think it would be really interesting to try it in a league like this as an experiment. We sometimes get really rough fouls at the end of games, which is not that unusual for a rec league.

Hate the suggestion. Like Snaq said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Actually I don't think it would take away the intentional decision. For example, what if a team fouls a player close to the endline because it has a better chance of intercepting the throw-in from there, as opposed to the sideline? And what if that player is well away from the ball? Couldn't that still be ruled an intentional?

Also, I do agree with tref - how do we handle the administration of the decision? What if they don't tell us right away? Do we start the 20-second clock? Do they get to use the time for discussion with their players, like they do for player disqualifications? What if they don't tell us? Do we get to choose? Is it a T? Do you use this choice only in the last minute? Two minutes? 5 minutes? All fouls after the 10th?

While I think the idea in theory has some merit, writing the specifics and the administration would be a problem..

I don't know of any situation I've ever been in where a player would actually wait to foul until the opponent got to a certain spot on the floor. That may be overthinking.

I've heard the coach yell FOUL, FOUL......and the players don't even do/listen to that, let alone doing it purposely on the endline or in the corner.

JMO

I wonder if Mark's rule change would have the desire effect. That is, would it be a deterrent to fouling at the end of the game?

Let's say the rule is in place. A-1 fouls B-2. Team B opts for the throw-in, so Team A goes for steal on the throw-in, while the clock is stopped.

And fouls.

And does it again.

And again.

I don't see a deterrent here.

Perhaps, but there's never been the choice before. And I'm sure teams have different defenses based on the location of the throw-in. So I don't think it's too big a stretch to think the teams that are a little better coached might want the ball inbounded in a favorable spot.

My bigger concerns would in the administration.

A solution in search of a problem. I have no problem with the end of game fouling and really don't understand why so many people seem to.

Just to remember that FIBA once had this rule. And I'm very happy they canceled it many years ago (>25, I'd say). :)

The captain had to say almost immediately if they opted for a throw-in instead of the free throws. In any case they had to tell before a time-out had started. We had to remember who was the captain and who was their alternate in case of a substitution (a real PITA). The throw-in was from the division line.

Ciao

Reset team fouls
 

Thoughts about this one: reset team fouls each quarter. Four fouls puts the opponent in the bonus, six for the double bonus during each quarter.

Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun ...
 

Doubles the chance for a correctable error.

Here's some I've heard over the past few years from other officials.

1) go to 16 minute halves

2) return to four full timeouts (eliminates "Coach - 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30? 60 or 30?")

3) eliminate restrictions on logos and corporate sponsorships on uniforms - after all, as long as we can read their numbers on front and back, what the heck difference does it make? If a corporation wants to pay for uniforms and save the school money and all it wants in return is it's logo visible on the uniforms, who cares? (this suggestion came from a ref who's also a HS English teacher)

4) anytime a coach receives two direct technicals, he also gets smacked upside the head with a frying pan (OK - that one is from me)

5) require each team to have at least 5 hot moms in the bleachers at every game (OK - that one is from me, too - plus about 5 other guys) :)

Because that's when kids get hurt.

I like both of these. I'd even go the route of saying 18 minute halves such as what Minnesota does. Or split the difference and go 17.

The traditionalist in me doesn't like it at the high school level.

Players can and will get hurt no matter what. I don't see end of game fouling situations as any more dangerous than any other time...especially if you get the first foul.

Really? I have never seen a player injured in this scenario. I've seen a fight break out, but never had a kid get injured during the last minute fouling.

I feel the same way about the 16 minute halves, also change to using the NCAA Scorebook.

There's nothing in the rule book that would stop you from going to that, though I'm not sure why you'd want to.

I don't either.

Newsflash, players get hurt while playing sports (sometimes with no contact too).

Peace

Except for the fact that FED rules right now are quarters & not halves. The NCAA Scorebook is designed for halves.

I had some experience with the NCAA Scorebook during the JUCO Tournament, & I like how you do the running score with time occurred as well as fouls with time occurred.

The NCAA Scorebook has higher accountability involved.

Don't you think that will be an easy change when or if the rule changes? ;)

Peace

Depending on coaches, it might not be such an easy change.

I actually like the NCAA Timing rules better, as the game seems to go a bit faster compared to playing 4 quarters.

Good point but how many correctable errors have you had the last several seasons? I've had 0 X 2 still equals 0.

I had 2 in one week in college games.

Unless the coach and his team are stupid and don't realize that 12 seconds is not enough time to close an 11 point gap.

One example of short-sightedness is the belief that your experience and everyone elses' is the same. It isn't. I routinely have, especially in HS subvarsity games, coaches start fouling with 2 minutes left and 10 down. 2 to 3? In 10 seconds, maybe.

The 3 point shot has neutralized the free throw even for teams that CAN make their FTs, which most can't. Plus, you have a team ahead by 2 or 3 late actually attempting to foul to prevent a 3 point shot winning or tying. So we have fouls by the losing AND winning team now -- either to stop the clock or prevent a 3. In other words, we condone rules infractions being used for competitive advantages. Can you name any other rules code that allows that? I find it a little strange Mark P is just now posting this, as I'm sure he was involved in threads where this topic has come up previously. If he wasn't, it would be the only such thread in history!

Seriously, I don't care who gets credit; I'm sure I wasn't the first one with the idea. But it IS needed, and there are few, if any, reasonable objections. We deal with declining penalties in football all the time, and the real point is to change the game away from using fouls or other rules infractions to gain an advantage.

The idea is sound, long overdue, and one that I have proposed for years -- including on here.

Other rule changes needed:

-- eliminate the 1 and 1; 2 shots at 7 fouls and 2 shots and the ball at 10. The game is way too physical. Plus, 40 and 50 foul games take way too long.

-- go back to the FT lane restriction ending on the release; we have all but ignored the rule at the varsity level and no summer leagues have or enforce this rule. Besides, the current rule can be very difficult to call in some situations.

-- 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.

-- Remove warm up dunking restrictions. There's no need for this rule. If they destroy the equipment, forfeit. If they get hurt, sorry. If they get out of control, we can deal with that through plenty of remedies.

I think Fed should also seriously consider mandating 3 officials at the varsity level right now (or a 2 year implementation) and let it be known that within 3-8 years, ALL HS games must use 3 officials. This is a pipe dream, but I can wish can't I?

1) +1 (16 or 18 works for me)
2) How about five 45s?
3) Im not a good uni cop as it is but making it a free for all isnt good either. I think we should get out of the penalty side of uniforms in terms of logos etc and into a reporting role. Let ADs, leagues and HS assoc deal with that crap.

I asked a coach yesterday.

He said, "24 second clock."

Yes, no, maybe so?

24 is too short for that age group. Just my 2 cents.

Now, here is where I might agree with you, but only because I understand your context. I don't remember seeing anyone specifically injured from end-of-game fouling in any of the levels I work. But I understand since you work with a lot of younger kids, this could be a problem, since at that age they may not know the "proper" way to foul, and the coaches they have may not know the proper way to teach it. Add to it the fact they are probably a little less coordinated, and I can see where you might have seen a few more of those types of problems than some of the rest of us.

While I wouldn't have a big problem with you implementing that type of rule for your leagues, I still don't see it as a problem in HS and above. Even so, it might cut down on a couple of injuries in those situations, but it wouldn't eliminate them altogether, and it would also take away a legitimate strategy to allow for comebacks in games.

OK, how's about this - would you be in favor of a shot clock at all to be implemented acorss the Fed?

Until the economy turns around, I don't see this happening any time soon.

I think this is another solution in search of a problem. People want to implement this to combat what, two games a year per official. And they consistently use, as evidence, the results of 1 or 2 games nationwide per year that are aberrant.

It's just not a consistent problem, even if you consider it a problem.

NEGATIVE...I have college games where shot clock operation is a problem, can you imagine it at the high school level?

I think if there is a choice between more games with 3 on a crew or a shot clock--and they are both 'expense' choices in the eyes of school budget directors--I am going with crews of 3 every single time.

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?

Should be at least available via state adoption

+100!

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.

Why?

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.

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 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.

+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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Don't Forget Them ???
 

Players behind the three point arc?

Let It Hit ...
 

How about the backboard?

Box? What is this box you speak of? Does it exist in other states? ;)

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.

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.

So you would want only players, not officials, to be able to call timeouts? :rolleyes:

I think we all know what he means. Baseline v. endline IMO.

A1 was calling for a time-out and Rich granted it. Same difference, huh?

Are you sure it wasn't Rut? I can't tell sometimes...

That's a local level issue as it is not mandated by NFHS that players warm up for 20 minutes.

+1

I can. It's automatic.

+1E10

i hate having to turn around to see who is calling a time out. if i am watching the coach, who is watching the players?

During a live ball, only players can request a time out.

Roy G

At any level shot clock operation can be a problem, game clock operation can be a problem at any level.

Shot clock operations are a lot more complicated than the scoreboard.

It also depends on the person's experience & their maturity level as to how well they comprehend what needs to be done.

Depending on the scoreboard setup, I beg to differ as to which can be more complicated.

Ok so let's make everything simplistic & have FED adopt all NCAA Rules.

chseagle...on a side note:

Would you like a rule MANDATING that clock operators/scorebook keepers wear stripes/grays/uniform so that the officials can more readily see you at the table?

Remember...now the whole gym can see who the table officials are...;)

It would make things easier to identify who should be at the table & who shouldn't.

During NWAACCs we had a Turquoise-like blue polo that we were asked to wear, & the scorer had on a striped garment.

During the last half of this season my family & I were wearing purple polos that identified us as game management.

During the 3A/4A Regionals last year, everyone was giving a bright neon green t-shirt that was game management.

As I see it, the easier to identify game management the better.

Concerning making a rule MANDATORY, how about appendix 4.0 of the 2009-2011 Basketball Officials' Manual that talks about who should be selected as game management & the training they must go through?

No matter how you slice it properly operating the shot clock is more difficult than the scoreboard. And it has nothing to do with the buttons, knobs, or switches. Has to do with rules.

Again, it can depend on a person's experience & training.

Sure put in personnel that have only watched the games, more mistakes happen. Put in a person that has read the rules, watched a few games, & done some practice either via scrimmages or lower-level games the chance for mistakes is minimized.

What I was meaning with the scoreboard vs. shot clock controls is that generally all a shot clock operator has to worry about is the on/off switch, reset button, & blank button. The scoreboard operator on the other hand has the score buttons, foul buttons, & game clock controls.

Depending on the scoreboard setup, more mistakes can be made due to having to input player numbers after every made basket & after every foul called.

No need to worry about player numbers with the shot clock.

Hence why I as saying that the FED should make the Duties of Game Management appendix mandatory is cause of how often I have seen the misapplication of rules by table personnel due to either not keeping themselves up to date or not reading the rules at all.

NCAA tried this in mid-80s for a test season in Pac-10. Didn't work.
Rarely did team take the throw-in.

"It may be an honor to act as timer or scorer, but it's not an honor that should be passed around with each game."

"Above all, choose someone with plenty of poise, good judgement, a sense of impartiality..."

"Insist that your timer and scorer attend one of the state-sponsored rules and interpretation meetings and, if possible, an occasional meeting of a local officials' group."

"See that your timer and scorer are accorded the same courtesy and respect as that due the floor officials."

I'm meaning the whole of section 4.0 not just bits & pieces.

Thinking back to watching games as either a spectator or as crowd control, it is a bit of a surprise to see who knows the rules & who doesn't (who should be game management & who shouldn't).

I'm almost tempted to ask everyone here in the area that does do table operations how well they do know the rules pertaining to their duties/responsibilities (however I'd be kind of afraid of what the response would be like).

chseagle, a scoreboard operator is only has to pay attention to an official's whistle and when an officials chops the clock and push a button accordingly.

A shot clock operator has to understand the nuances of when to reset, when to hold, when to do nothing. A shot clock operator has to be totally engaged into the game AND know the rules specific to shot clock administration.

IF all the scoreboard operator has to do is watch the floor officials, then who do coaches yell at when there's a score or foul discrepancy?

It's always the scoreboard that gets yelled at by the coaches, not the scorebooks, so there's more to it then you are thinking there is.

During the JUCO Tournament, at times, the scoreboard operator was assisting the scorer with the identifying of who scored.

So the scoreboard operator has to be paying attention to both the action on the court as well as be in constant communication with the official scorebook throughout the game. To some it may be easy to do scoreboard, however it's not as easy as it seems to be, especially when dealing with other table personnel that are either not well versed in their roles or care more about supporting their team than assisting with game management.

I've been on both ends of the spectrum, a table crew & floor crew that works well together as well as the exact opposite.

I've been on setups where one or two of the table work well with the floor officials, yet the other table personnel either don't care or have no clue. On some of those games, table personnel were replaced at halftime, if not sooner.

I've seen games where every other time down the court, the game has to be stopped due to an error/issue, as well as seen games where not once have the floor officials had to approach the table due to scoring/timing issues.

They don't get to yell at anyone. And it's the scorer's responsibility to ensure the timer is keeping the correct score on the scoreboard.

I've done them all chseagle in my lifetime. Without a doubt operating the shot clock was the most taxing job.

With all the different scenarios you have described where there have been problems with the table how do now expect these same people to also be able to do a shot clock properly?

By complying with Appendix 4.0 in the 2009-2011 Officials' Manual

Knowing the rules, duties, & responsibilities to the position in which they are doing & complying with all the above.

Not doing Varsity level contests until they have had so many sub-Varsity games experience.

Be committed in doing that position game in/game out.

Anything else missing?

Not always is the scorer keeping the scorebook up to date, in which case new personnel should be found to be the scorer.

As I have said before, if the only official information on the scoreboard is the time remaining, then what gives coaches the right/privilege to complain about the information on the scoreboard?

Some scoreboards have the same capabilities of the scorebook by keeping track of the active players & player point & foul totals, so that information is not considered official? If that information is not official then why do coaches yell about errors in that information?

One more thing...

Be committed to truth, justice and The American Way™!

How in the world did I miss out on all the discussion about changes to the table rules? I feel so left out.

2 ways to prevent that.

1) Make sure the timer is posting the score in a timely fashion.

2) Inform the official(s) if/when you are getting too much chatter from the coaches.

LMAO The only times I've used a scoreboard so far that has individual player stats on it has been the JUCO Tournament & 3A/4A Regionals.

The regular scoreboard I am used to only copies player fouls if they get inputted. Otherwise, just have to press score+1 (+2 or +3), no need to input individual player info.

I always post the points as they happen, unless of course ruling on the court disallows the points.

Good grief, we're not giving you our opinions, we're telling you the rule. It's the only official information up there. Just because you post the number of timeouts remaining doesn't make the information official. If we think the scorebook is wrong, can we use your lights to help us? Sure, but the book is still the official score. It would be the official time, too, if there was a way to do it.

To answer your question, they yell because they see it and they think it's official. They also think it's illegal to dribble high and catch your own air ball, that doesn't mean they're right.

And coaches don't yell at the table in my games.

Technically, the scorer can be the timer.

Get the scorer a couple of stopwatches (one for game clock, another as a TO/Intermission timer).

I love how a thread about suggested NFHS rule changes is being dominated by all things, scoreboard operating....

The scoreboard is just a formality to keep fans knowing about the game. In all reality it is not needed.

Not sure what that has to do with the direction of a thread pertaining to rules changes and how it has turned into a discussion on scoreboard operation. As to your point, many on the board, including myself, have pointed out that fact.

Now if I had any say in rules changes, I would get rid of us having to be the fashion police. Safety related things....yeah, we should be on that, but uniform color, specifications, arm band color, head band color, undershirt...leave that to the head coach or the state.

Ok one rule change to be made, get rid of a full scoreboard. For display, only show game time (& shot clock for those states that use it).

What would be the point of this rule change? Coaches would never go for this because they want to know the exact score when possible and not have to ask the scorer. As an official, I want to know the score...especially in late game situations. As a fan, I shouldn't have to keep a running score myself.

Who benefits from this? I can't think of anyone whom would benefit. I know you talk about your lower level games and having issues, but I think you overstate how often this happens. I've done my fair share of games at that level and it's 98 percent never an issue. And if there is, it gets corrected real easily. Now if you're talking about foul counts and player counts, I'm not concerned about that at lower levels. Usually only get that at the varsity level consistently and every scoreboard operator that I have worked with at the level knows what they are doing.

Sometimes, it is better to stop talking [or posting]. Especially if you are a scoreboard operator who is clueless.