What rule would you change?
 

I know our job is to enforce the rules but if you had the power to change one rule what would it be?

Elimination of restrictions on colors of headbands and compression sleeves

Expand the coaching box at the high school level. And get rid of all rules associated with colors of armbands and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with playing the game.

Peace

Just about all the uniform rules with regard to color, dimensions, logos and numbers.

Ch..Ch..Ch...Ch...Changes
 

Only a player on the court may request a timeout.
But alas, "time may change me, but I can't change time." :cool:

Suggested NFHS Rule Changes ...
 

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Suggestion: NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

Also, over the years our local interpreters have added the statement "outside the cylinder" to the goaltending definition, but that statement is not in the NFHS rulebook. So if you have a situation where a player touches the ball during a field-goal try, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, while the ball is in the cylinder, and the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight, then, by strict interpretation of the written definition, the official can call either a goaltending violation, or a basket interference violation.

The definition of goaltending did contain this requirement (having to be outside of the imaginary cylinder) through the 2003-04 season. For some unknown reason the rule was edited, without comment, or announcement, for the 2004-05 season and that part of the definition was dropped.

2002-03 NFHS 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while: a) the ball is in downward flight. b) the entire ball is above the level of the basket ring. c) the ball has the possibility of entering the basket in flight. d) the ball is not touching an imaginary cylinder which has the basket ring as its lower base.

2012-13 NFHS 4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try or tap while it is in its downward flight entirely above the basket ring level and has the possibility of entering the basket in flight.

This omission ("outside the cylinder") needs to be corrected.

Delete 4-12-2d. It requires officials to call the game contrary to other rules.

Why is this an omission? Why would it not be goaltending just because it has entered the cylinder?

Name That Tune ...
 

David Bowie, 1971.

Six Of One, Half Dozen Of Another ...
 

Because it would also be basket interference. Forces us to pick our poison.

So what? What are your signals for the two violations?

I didn't even notice this until just now. It has to just be a typo.

I think for basket interference he signals the basket good (or not). For goaltending I believe Billy takes his belt off and waves it back and forth over his head.

The signals are irrelevant. Touching the ball in the cylinder is basket interference. It's not goaltending.

I'd like 16 minute halfs instead of 4 quarters.

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.

Heads, I Win; Tails, You Lose ...
 

How about flipping a coin: heads, it's traveling; tails, it's out of bounds.

How about 8 minute halves? :)

+100

MTD, Sr.

As long as they are running clock halves. :p

MTD, Sr.

Will our game fees be increased by 12.5%?

Switch the arrow as soon as the thrower gets the ball for the AP throw in.

I know, I know.

I'd settle for allowing coaches to request a TO only during a dead ball.

Several, most of which I've stated on here before. I'll ignore ones mentioned, but forgive me if I missed a post.

1. Allow an option for taking the ball OOB instead of shooting free throws, at least in the last two minutes.
2. Eliminate the wording in the comments declaring that fouling to stop the clock is an accepted coaching strategy (if that still exists).
3. Eliminate the one-and-one. 2 shots at the first bonus; 3, or preferably 2 shots and the ball, at the second. Fouling seems to have no consequence these days.
4. Mercy rule. 50 in the 3rd; 30 in the 4th; no return to regular clock.

That would changes the game. Why is this a problem? If a team can't hit free throws, perhaps they shouldn't win.

A solution in search of a problem.

But then again, we all have our crusades.

A throw in from anywhere along the endline
Change 7-5-7b :
A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation or common foul or Intentional Foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus is in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end line.

5 Sec/10 Sec Call
 

I would change the rule that if you have a violation on an inbounds play (5 sec) or a 10 sec backcourt violation that the coach can buy back the ball with a timeout.

Right now we are seeing a lot of problems at times when a coach is requesting a time out as the administering official on the throw in is whistling for a violation. If you get to the count and signal a violation let the coach buy back the ball at a cost of a timeout.

No

I have seen no problems with this. If we get to the point of a violation before my partners or I award the time out (maybe we don't hear or maybe they ask for it late) then it is a violation. It doesn't matter when the time out is requested, what matters is when it is granted.

When this happens, I will ask the coach if they still want the time out but I won't let them retain the ball. If I can count to five then I am almost certain that coaches can count to four. Or, perhaps they should teach the player who is inbounding the ball to call time. Also, most of the time when this occurs it happens when the defense is hard pressing and/or the offense takes two or three seconds after getting the ball before they tap it and then act surprised that a few seconds later I blow the whistle. The count doesn't start when its tapped but it seems that a lot of players (at all levels) still think it should.

I see people post this every now and again, and I don't understand what the problem is at all. Why is it an issue for the head coach to call a time out during a live ball? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I would just like some sort of justification as to why this is an issue with so many people. Thanks!

I have no clue, myself. I see it as part of the gig that we have to be aware for TO requests, especially when they're expected.

Agreed. But the issue was that the coach waited to call the TO at the exact moment the ref hit the 5 count or perhaps just after. If I hear or see a request for time out before I have counted to 5 then I have not problem granting the time out. But if, as frequently happens, coaches are not paying attention or try to wait until the last possible second before they say or signal time out and the 5 count has finished then I call the violation. Not only do I feel that this is the ONLY way to officiate the game, but as a former coach I do not understand why my team has to suffer because the other guy did not get hit time out off in time. If his team violates then it should be my ball. Period.

It's more about focus. It's not a huge deal, frankly. But I'd rather the coach not expect me to be focused on him when there's a scramble on the floor. Change it to dead balls only (whether the clock is running or not), it simply becomes easier.

Again, not a huge deal, but too many coaches expect us to listen to them when they want a TO after spending the entire game calling "side out" plays to their players.

Wrong issue.

Backet Interference for Slapping/Vibrating the backboard

You think it should be BI for slapping the backboard?

I will always, ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the coach requesting a timeout. I'd do that for either team.