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

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 ;)