Another suggested FED rule change

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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...

[JugglingReferee]

Only if the clock is running.

[Adam]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[APG]

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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..

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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

[bainsey]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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

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.

[Rich]

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.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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

[billyu2]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Reset team fouls each quarter. Four fouls puts the opponent in the bonus, six for the double bonus during each quarter.

Doubles the chance for a correctable error.

[Mark Padgett]

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)