It's that time again (rule changes)

[Mark Padgett]

OK, guys and gals. The HS season is over and now it's time for all of us to put on our thinking caps and make our suggestions for rule changes for next year. I think we can state what changes we would like to see and why, plus guess on what changes (if any) are likely - based on HS following NCAA by a few years.

I'll start it off.

I would like to see PC fouls shot if in the penalty. I have never figured out why the rules treat a foul by an offensive player who has player control differently than one by an offensive player who does not.

However, I think it's likely the NF will change the rule so that no offensive fouls will be shot (unless flagrant or intentional).

Also - I would like to go to POE on technicals. It just seems the logical thing to do.

Also also - I would like them to eliminate the AP arrow and go back to jump balls. Suuuuuure they will. Right after they bring back peach baskets.

OK - your turn.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Also - I would like to go to POE on technicals. It just seems the logical thing to do.

Don't know if you'll see this one put into high school.When they first put in the 2 shot plus possession rule,the rationale behind it was that unsporting play was increasing,and there was a need for a stiffer penalty to make players and coaches think a little before they took a T.I don't know whether I'd like to see a change,and then maybe see high school coaches start taking the "purpose" T's, like some college coaches do now. Might be OK as long as the 2-and-out and seat-belt rules stay in,though. JMO.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Also - I would like to go to POE on technicals. It just seems the logical thing to do.

POE or POI?

[theshortbaldref]

Of course, the famous "coach warming up at the divisional tournament with his players" rule. How about, only players in the book are allowed on the floor to warmup. (no coaches, cheerleaders, managers, parents, mascots, television analysts, etc.) And one I've never figured out. Either get rid of the one-and-one bonus (for the 7th, 8th and 9th fouls??? Why bother?) or the double bonus. One way or another, get rid of one of them. Shot one-and-a-bonus for all fouls after six, or shoot two freethrows for every foul after six. (And why six fouls???)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

POE or POI?

POE - Point Of Embarrassment

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

I would like to see PC fouls shot if in the penalty. I have never figured out why the rules treat a foul by an offensive player who has player control differently than one by an offensive player who does not.


Also - I would like to go to POE on technicals. It just seems the logical thing to do.

So regular fouls committed by the offense should carry more penalty than those committed by the defense (possession change and FTs vs just FTs), while technical fouls committed by the offense should only carry the same penalty than those committed by the defense? I'm confused...

[scottk_61]

I like the experiment that we worked down here in Florida this year and hope to see the Fed accept it nationwide.
On foul shots.....We had no players in the lowest lane space, with the shooter and 2 teammates, and no more than 4 opponents on the line. Basically the Women's NCAA design.
It offered a lot better game IMO. More fast breaks, but a much cleaner game under the basket.

[JRutledge]

I just hope they add the rule we have used for the National Federation for two years. We used a NF Experimental Rule that did not have the 30 seconds after a player is disqualified. Under this rule the substitution had to be done immediately. This eliminated the posturing that would go on with the 30 seconds and kind of giving a mini-timeout for the lack of a better word after a fouled out player was notified. The game kept moving and many officials I know loved it.

Peace

[JeffTheRef]

I hate it. It only brings pain. I try to never give the time out till I have turned and identified the request as coming from the head coach(high school). I am reluctant to turn my head from live action, so this can take a good 3-4 seconds, even more. That's the way it goes. How do I know it isn't the drunk in row 2, or the other coach? I don't. I got burned with that last thought one time, believe it or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
I hate it. It only brings pain. I try to never give the time out till I have turned and identified the request as coming from the head coach(high school). I am reluctant to turn my head from live action, so this can take a good 3-4 seconds, even more. That's the way it goes. How do I know it isn't the drunk in row 2, or the other coach? I don't. I got burned with that last thought one time, believe it or not.

I agree. Or at least limit the times they can do this. I had a few situations this year where it was very unclear who was requesting the timeout. A couple of those situations were right before 10 second counts and my back was turned to the coach. I wish they would change this rule, but they will not unfortunately.


Peace

[Rich]

I would eliminate the use of the AP arrow on those instances where the defense ties up the ball. Reward the defense and make the ball go the other way. Same with shots that stick between the ring and the backboard or come to rest on the flange. Shooter put the ball there, we go the other way.

I would also implement the "team control foul" as per women's NCAA.

As far as further restricting the lane, I'll agree to all the suggestions put forth earlier in the thread if we also go back to letting the players enter the lane on the release of the throw. As things stand right now, rough play isn't exactly a problem on the lane since the FED reverted back to the "has to hit the rim or enter the basket" rule.

Mechanics-wise, I would try to tweak the 2-official switching procedure as outlined by the manual -- eliminate long switches and the switches that seem forced -- like when the trail official calls a foul in the frontcourt, for example.

Rich

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I would eliminate the use of the AP arrow on those instances where the defense ties up the ball. Reward the defense and make the ball go the other way.

Rich, the NCAA actually implemented this rule about 4 years ago. It was an unmitigated disaster. The rule lasted only one year. There was too much confusion over whether the defense had "forced" the tie-up, or whether the ball was loose and tied-up simultaneously. It was horrible. I'm very glad they got rid of it.

Also, the team control foul is used for both men and women in NCAA.

Chuck

[mj]

I would like to see something changed on the free throw lane. The way it is now the second position is the best position to get the rebound in my opinion. Let them in on the release or go with the women's college rule.

I do not like the 30 to replace a sub. It should be immediate. Too many coaches in Wisconsin are using this as a timeout.

Rich what did you think of the state tournament?

MJ

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
I hate it. It only brings pain. I try to never give the time out till I have turned and identified the request as coming from the head coach(high school). I am reluctant to turn my head from live action, so this can take a good 3-4 seconds, even more. That's the way it goes. How do I know it isn't the drunk in row 2, or the other coach? I don't. I got burned with that last thought one time, believe it or not.

This is my pet peeve as well. I think a compromise would be to allow the coach to request TO during DEAD BALL periods only. Then, I'm not trying to watch a play and crane my neck to see who's yelling TO.

[oatmealqueen]

Really, really want some sort of mercy rule for ALL games. We experimented with it in Michigan for a couple years at all levels, and it eliminated some 102-3 games IMO.