Unless it's on its downward flight, in which case it is (also) goaltending.

As mentioned above, so what?

If a player lifts his pivot and places it back down out of bounds, which is it, out of bounds or traveling?

I'm the same with previous, headband/jersey colors, logos, etc.

Also, I would get rid of pre-game dunking being a T. If it's a shot you might actually make in a game, you should be able to practice it.

And how about getting rid of AP arrow! Jump ball between the two who tied it up man, makes things more exciting!!

While in general, I perfer the jump ball, that would be awful in girls game.

Not in high school. College, certainly, but not high school.

My change: Change the wording of a technical foul for "grasping" the ring to "hanging from" the ring. The latter does significantly more damage than the former.

While I was half joking about the jump ball, I actually didn't think about how miserable a girls game would be, 2 1/2 hours minimum!

Change #1: I would re-write (NFHS and NCAA) the Free Throw Violation Rule. I would turn back the clock 20 years which would simplify the rule considerably. Forget whether the violators in one of the Lane spaces or not or is the Free Throw Shooter. There would be only four combinations of violations: (1) Violation by the Non-Shooting Team. (2) Violation by the Shooting Team. (3) Violation by the Non-Shooting Team followed by a violation by the Shooting Team. (4) Violations by both the Non-Shooting Team and the Shooting Team at the same time. If (3) or (4) occurred during the last Free Throw play would resume with a Jump Ball (See Change #7 below.) at the nearest Free Throw Circle by any two Players.

Change #2: I would re-write both the NFHS and the NCAA (especially the NCAA) Technical Foul Rule. The TF Rule needs to be simplified as they have become to complicated to try to officiate minutia. Many of the situations that have been added to the Rules Books would have been handled the minutia that is cluttering the Rules. This minutia has been added because Officials do not use logic in handling situations that fall under the TF Rules.

Change #3: The nonsense with regard to the NFHS and NCAA Comments on the Rules concerning the swinging of the elbows can not be supported by the Rules. The Rules does not need to be changed, we need to do a better job of educating officials as to how to apply the Rules with regard to the swinging of elbows.

Change #4: Eliminate the Three-Second Rule (both NFHS and NCAA).

Change #5: Closely guarded (three feet, not six feet) while only holding the ball and only in the Frontcourt (NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA).

Change #6: I officiated women's college basketball from 1974 to 2008, and men's college and FIBA from 1993 to 2008, so I have officiated my share of games involving a Shot Clock but I really do not like it even in the NBA/WNBA. Just a personal quirk of mine.


Change #7 (This one is for BillyMac, :D.): Do away with Alternating Possession (NFHS, NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA). It is an abomination upon the game.

I will go back to my nap during the Steelers game now.

MTD, Sr.

FED: free throw restrictions end on release; no seat belt for indirect T's

NCAA-M: repeal upward motion clause

I don't know, they might learn to start playing for the ball instead of the call.

Also, officials might start trying to let the girls play through it a bit more before jumping on the whistle.

Just Use The Wayback Machine ...
 

The basket interference/goaltending multiple violation "choice" can be easily fixed. I'm not sure that this one (above) can be easily fixed, unless the NFHS comes up with a casebook play that tells us which violation to call.

Risky Extrapolation ???
 

Can we extrapolate from Basketball Rules Fundamental #5 (Neither ... traveling rule operates during the ...throw-in) that you can't travel out of bounds, which would make this more likely to be an out of bounds violation and, therefore, less likely to be a traveling violation? Please note the question mark at the end of my previous sentence. Yeah. I know. I'm reaching for straws here. But as far fetched as it is, let's see someone come up with a less far fetched interpretation.

I don't see that anyone, other than you, is interested in "fixing" either one.

I'm betting there will be no other interpretations, far-fetched or otherwise.

How about 18 minute halves. We do that here in MN. Of course JV(B squad and lower) are shorter but still played in halves.

Well, there is one case where the choice between GT and BI matters.....a FT. The penalty if it is GT includes a technical foul while BI is only a violation. It may not be common but I have seen GT on a FT before....in an NCAA D1 conference tourney game even.

I was going to bring this point up as well. Leaving "outside the cylinder" would simplify things. On the way up or down, in the cylinder is BI.