As I said, the fairness issue is very minor, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. There's nothing unfair, as Chuck pointed out, about running out of time. The players know how much time is left, they're not getting screwed, unless you have actually seen someone be able to "catch and shoot" in less than .2 seconds.
My guess is that a fair amount of schools would have to incur expense in order to standardize the horns.
As for 3-point shots and dunking. Allowing the 3 point shot was not nearly so drastic a rule change. Not even in the same ball park. Allowing dunking was more along the lines of removing an unnecessary rule. What purpose did it serve to forbid it?

Sorry, but the rule just doesn't need changed. You're talking about a fundamental change in the timing of a game, forcing the officials to keep track of more information. The benefits would be negligible (how many games will this actually affect) and the implimentation would be too cumbersome.

One more problem. Are all shots beyond half-court worth 4 points, throughout the game? Or just the ones shot during the buzzer? Now, you penalize a player for shooting too soon.

SNAQWELLS

Honestly, it's too convoluted to impliment.

No, I don't.

1- Logostics is a problem. It would be more difficult to judge whether the ball was released before the buzzer ended. It's much easier to know whether the ball is released prior to the buzzer sounding.

2- The rules that you have proposed at too complicated and confusing to administer in a situation where emotions are already high.

3- As others have stated, the game is played under a set time limit. What's the point in extending that time for one quarter of the game?

4- The silliness of the 4 point shot is not needed.

5- In short, there's no need for it, which is why the NBA will probably adopt it.

I apologize!!
 

Rock,

I apologize for my comment. As everyone else stated "just having fun"!!

Forget the idea. It's just silly.
[/B][/QUOTE]There's no need to be persnickity,Chuck!

Hold On!
 

There's no need to be persnickity,Chuck! [/B][/QUOTE]

I think this idea might work in the city leagues. I've watched a couple of the "And One" videos with the street ballers and this might work with them.


BTW, I hate that type of hoops.

Re: Hold On!
 

I think this idea might work in the city leagues. I've watched a couple of the "And One" videos with the street ballers and this might work with them.


BTW, I hate that type of hoops. [/B][/QUOTE]

What type of hoops would that be?

bad rule
 

Sorry but people made fun of your rule because it is silly.

Do you want games being decided on whether or not teams get lucky and hit these shots? I don't. Instead of the best team winning you might get the luckiest team winning.

Do you want coaches to start wasting practice time teaching kids to make half-court shots? That is not in the best interest of the game.

Have you met anybody who liked this idea?

BTW, I hate that type of hoops. [/B][/QUOTE]

What type of hoops would that be? [/B][/QUOTE]Now you're being persnickity, Dan!

It seems to be running rampant these days. Rampant,I tell ya!

Persnickity Dan
He's our man
If he can't do it
Chuckie can!
http://www.gifs.net/animate/cheerldr.gif


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 10th, 2003 at 03:18 AM]

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/corn.gif

Pretty corny, JR! ! ! !

Not really. Contrary to what many believe, the 3 pt shot was not adopted to reward the distance shot. It was adopted to open up the middle of the court -- by dragging the defense away from the basket. In other words, the 3 pt shot was adopted to solve a problem of the court being too clogged up in the middle. And it had the intended effect, which is why the rule remains. Your ginmmick, excuse me, rule, is cute and clever, but does not address anything -- kinda like that league that put in the extra point for steals in the back court . . . maybe you can sell your idea to them

quirky rules
 

Since we're bringing up wierd rules, I think my favorite wierd rule was adopted by the CBA years and years ago. I'm sure they've dropped it since then. But they determined the standings in the league not by wins and losses, but on a points-system, like hockey. I'm sure I will get it wrong, but it went something like this: the team that won the game received two points in the standings. Additionally, each quarter of the game was worth one point. Whichever team scored more points in a quarter was awarded a point in the standings. If the teams scored the same number of points in any given quarter, they each received one half of a point. So even if you lost the game, you could add a couple points to your record and gain ground on the team ahead of you in the standings.

Just showing my age. Sorry :)

Chuck

Let's do the same in other sports....

Baseball: 2 outs, bottom of the ninth, home team down by one, bases loaded... Add extra outs to give the home team a chance to win...

Golf: The losing golfers in the round could play extra holes to see if they could get a better score...

Football: At the end of regulation the losing team (if down by 7 or 3) could get a chance to score an additional TD or FG to try to force OT...



[Edited by cmckenna on Feb 10th, 2003 at 02:13 PM]

From a coach's perspective - NO WAY. If you don't like the fact you can't catch and shoot with .2 left, oh well. You played 4 quarters (less that remaining .2 seconds), now use your remaining time as best you can.

As for that not seeming fair or interesting, it is fair and it isn't a very interesting last .2 seconds. But if the ball wasn't OOB, would that team have had that .2 seconds anyway - it would have gone so quickly you never would have known what you missed. The entire game is interesting and exciting, we don't need to add this idea to make it better. A better idea would be to knock the ball OOB with a legitimate 3.2 seconds left so you have enough time to shoot - don't arbitrarily add 3 seconds.

On the other hand, for all you who don't like this and think it is entirely unprecedented, you might want to watch game film from the 72 Olympics ;)