I had a brainstorm for a new rule which I call "The Buzzer Shot" and wrote up a short web page for it at http://www.rockhoward.com/buzzershot.html

In brief the idea is that you can take a desperation shot from behind the half cout line while the buzzer is sounding at the end of the game. Besides adding another option and more excitement to the end of the game, it also solves the problem of what a team can do when they have the ball with only 0.1 or 0.2 seconds left.

Does anybody like this idea?

Would officials be able to handle this rule change?

Can anyone help me recraft this idea into the proper language that would be required for actual adoption into the official rule book of some league?

Thanks!

Rock
[email protected]

I read your text, and I think your idea is very confusing and really not necessary. I did like your idea of having "non-shouting" fouls, however - especially the "intentional non-shouting" foul.

My problem is, how do you tell when someone deliberatly doesn't shout, vs. when someone just doesn't have anything to say?

Please clarify. Inquiring minds want to know.

Well of course I mesnt non-shooting fouls. I'll fix that.

I also agree that the rule is unnecessary. I just
think that it would add more excitement and strategy.

Rock

Rock,
 

"Well of course I mesnt non-shooting fouls. I'll fix that."

+++++++++

I'm gald ouy croreceted the mistpyenig erorro.

Wrong for That!!!!!
 

Tim C,

Your opinion on this idea is very obvious.!!!

You are rong fur dat!! Ha Ha !!!

I thought that basketball officials would be able to
provide a meaningful opinion on a suggestion to improve the
game. Instead it appears that your "Senior Members" would rather than blow the whistle on a spelling error than actually think about this for a minute.

This response has reinforced many negative stereotypes of game officials (i.e., persnickity, unimaginative, bloated ego, etc.)

That said, I still think that most basketball officials wear cooler shoes than most basketball players.

Rock

Two observations:
1)You forgot "uppity".
2)"Persnickity" is a compliment in my mind.

Problems with your rule suggestion:
1) It effectively extends the time remaining for a losing team. My first thought is that this would be unfair, although I'm willing to let go of that feeling.
2) It requires every school in the association or league that adopts it to alter their equipment to standardize the horn length. If the horns were not standardized, then the new rule becomes useless, as teams don't know exactly how long they have.
3) It is, by your admission, unnecessary. Rule changes should address problems, fix inconsistencies, or serve some other useful purpose beyond making it exciting.

Why don't we make dunks worth 3 points? It would add excitement. Or maybe we could make a rule that any basket, in the last two minutes of the game, scored by a player with no fouls, is worth an extra point. It would add strategy.

Sorry, but "excitement" and "strategy" aren't compelling enough reasons for such a drastic and goofy rule change. Which may explain why I'm the first of the unimaginative bloated ego types to actually respond seriously.

Rock
I think that the "Senior Members" were just poking a little fun, that's all. Please don't take it so seriously. I didn't see any reinforced stereotypes, just a little humor. Tis a good group here, your bros and sis's.

Rock
I think that the "Senior Members" were just poking a little fun, that's all. [/B][/QUOTE]Not me! I'm persnickety-and loving it!

I can vouch for that! ;)

Rock, baby. Two words: lighten up.

Give the thread a chance to develop. (okay, that's nine words, so sue me)

An intriguing idea, but when the game is over, the game is over. No need to re-invent the wheel here, IMO.

I have to admit that when I read the description of the proposed rule, I had no idea what was intended. Now that I have some idea of what was intended, my question is this: why not just lengthen each period by 2 seconds (the approximate length of the horn's blast)?

I agree with the previous comment. When the game's over, it's over. And the sounding of the horn is when it's over (unless the try has been released. . . .etc :) )

Chuck

Golly Rock,
 

I gas Eye Em knot aloud to tri todue a phunni.

Take things a little less serious.

And sir, I am uppity, thank you.

Tee

Replying to snagwell:

1) Extends time for losing team. Is that fair?

Perhaps not. Life isn't fair. But consider the team who has 0.2 seconds left to inbound the ball and shoot. Current rules don't allow this so they have been cheated out of some time that _is_ part of the game. The buzzer shot evens up that discrepancy by giving them an outside chance to score.

2) Requires standardized horn sounding (i.e, exactly 3 seconds.)

That is correct. I don't know if that is a big deal or not. If there is a way to do this without requiring new equipment, that would be interesting.

3) The rule is unnecessary.

Yes, but the 3 point shot is similarly unnecessary. I watched a lot of great basketball in my youth before that rule came along. Also please explain to me what problem was solved by allowing dunking.


Good points, really. Thanks for responding!

Rock

How are they being cheated? There's a set amount of time in the game. If they're unable to perform a certain function within that set time, oh well. They don't have some kind of right to attempt a game-tying shot. They only get that opportunity if there's enough time on the clock to do it. Oh well, that's how the game is played.

You're tilting at windmills for no good reason, in my opinion. Forget the idea. It's just silly.

Chuck