A few officials and I were talking this weekend about the rules revisions, specifically the one involving only 6 players (max) on the lane lines. Several of us concluded (myself not included) that this may lead to an advantage for the shooting team; especially in last minute, close ballgames.

Would any of you think it would be more advantageous for the shooter to be able to whack the ball off the rim and retrieve his/her own rebound with having the top lane spots open? I'm not sure <b>I'm</b> convinced there's a distinct advantage here, but I suppose I could be.

We have reviewed this change, and from a coaching perspective we have decided the following.

When we're shooting, we will have a player stationed at the top of key ready to crash into the lane after rim contact, other player sets up to receive quick oob pass for fast break.

When we're defending, we have a rule that player in 3rd spot on shooting hand side has responsibility for blocking out shooter. We encourage our players to have inane conversations as to who will cover the shooter so the shooter is confused as to who will be blocking him out after shot.

It definitely has shifted the balance in favor of shooters vs the "old" alignment, IMHO

I'm missing something here coach. If you're *shooting* FTs why would you set up to receive the in bounds pass for a fast break?

I tell the players to communicate with each other before the shooter receives the ball, if they don't listen and are just babbling during the pre-shot routine, I call disconcertion.

Any contact by a player that “crashes” into the lane will be a foul as it is not incidental.

Danvrapp,
From observing the team camps this summer, it is my opinion that the second spot (offense) gains an additional advantage due to more freedom of movement (<I>less crowding</I>) and that advantage will remain in place until the players can 'go' on the release or until the first spot is vacated.
mick

Mick --

Have you been doing both girls and boys? Would you say the same for both? I've seen defense get an advantage, I think, but I haven't done a lot of boys'.

(People who are inclined to ignre the finer points of grammar, should note the difference in the above sentence that that apostrophe at the end makes!)

Should we also "ignre" (assuming IGNORE) the finer points of spelling? How about the double "that"? :D

Now a serious question about grammar. Would it not be "more correct" to end the sentence by saying "...made by the apostrophe at the end."? God knows...I could be wrong on that one.


[Edited by LarryS on Jul 21st, 2003 at 02:54 PM]

I'm not one to ignre, but I will.
 

Jewel,
Did a few Boys' last month.
Did a few Girls' yesterday.
Is there a gender difference? Dunno.
mick

Juulie - please note I did not comment on this post. Either I'm maturing, or the setup was too easy.

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tapedshut.gif

Mark -- I'm sitting here admiring your restraint!!

Larry -- I CAN spell, but my typing is lousy. You're right about the flow and polish on your re arranged sentence, but the grammar in mine is technically correct -- I think.

Juulie - I just couldn't pass on the opportunity, especially when I remember my grades in English. :)

Hey Larry,

People with glass taglines shouldn't throw stones. . .

;) Couldn't help myself :D

Chuck, I implied that my grades in English were poor. :(

But I solved the problem...just delete that portion of the tagline. :)

Re: I'm not one to ignre, but I will.
 

That's odd - I did a few boys' this weekend and a few girls this past month. :p


(If one Mark doesn't pick up on it, the other will!)