Vitale: Time to change rule to allow six fouls

[year of the gopher]

I'd love that. 5 a side seems like way too many, especially (as you point out) with 4 built in timeouts per half anyway.

If we are on the subject of rule changes, I also wouldn't mind seeing the double-bonus abolished, and just keep non-shooting fouls one-and-one the whole way out. If you can't ice a game by draining front ends with uncontested 15 feet shots, you don't deserve the win.

3 time outs per half or even better 4-5 for the game should be enough. How often have we seen visiting coaches in the Barn call time outs either right before or after a TV time out to further take the crowd out of the game. If you need time outs to rest guys, recruit better depth. If you need time outs to teach guys, you should have taught them better in practice.

This may be an unpopular comparison on this board, but one of the things I like about hockey is that teams get one time out per game and even then, they're rarely actually used. You do your coaching at TV time outs and period breaks or when guys are on the bench after substitutions. Otherwise they're expected to know what to do out there.

I don't have much of an opinion on the double bonus I guess.

 

[die hard gopher]

Leave fouls at five but move the three point line back to the nba line. Make them earn that 3rd point with a more difficult shot.

no

 

[AO54]

3 time outs per half or even better 4-5 for the game should be enough. How often have we seen visiting coaches in the Barn call time outs either right before or after a TV time out to further take the crowd out of the game. If you need time outs to rest guys, recruit better depth. If you need time outs to teach guys, you should have taught them better in practice.

This may be an unpopular comparison on this board, but one of the things I like about hockey is that teams get one time out per game and even then, they're rarely actually used. You do your coaching at TV time outs and period breaks or when guys are on the bench after substitutions. Otherwise they're expected to know what to do out there.

I don't have much of an opinion on the double bonus I guess.

don't start watching soccer, it will completely spoil your sports watching experience. I'll trade ads on the jerseys for the removal of all commercial breaks and non-injury timeouts any day.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

3 time outs per half or even better 4-5 for the game should be enough. How often have we seen visiting coaches in the Barn call time outs either right before or after a TV time out to further take the crowd out of the game. If you need time outs to rest guys, recruit better depth. If you need time outs to teach guys, you should have taught them better in practice.

This may be an unpopular comparison on this board, but one of the things I like about hockey is that teams get one time out per game and even then, they're rarely actually used. You do your coaching at TV time outs and period breaks or when guys are on the bench after substitutions. Otherwise they're expected to know what to do out there.

I don't have much of an opinion on the double bonus I guess.

You never have to work hard to sell me on a hockey comparison. I would love it if we went to 1 timeout per side, which could only be taken when the ball is not in play (or after a make). Alternatively, I had the idea last night when it seemed like a timeout was called primarily to make a substitution. Perhaps we could make 2 of the timeouts for each team "0 second timeouts", where the only thing you get out of it is to take the ball out of bounds and make any substitutions you want, but no huddle or strategy session.