Rule Changes

[NJCat83588]

The NCAA has proposed a number of rule changes for men's hoops starting this fall:

"Pending expected approval from the men's basketball oversight committee, the key changes are these:
• Reducing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30.
• Reducing the number of second-half timeouts by one for each team; eliminating coaches calling live-ball timeouts; reducing the amount of time to replace a player who has fouled out; and adjusting media timeout procedures.
• Allowing teams a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball past halfcourt, even if a timeout is called.
• Expanding the restricted arc under the basket from three feet to four feet.
• Penalties for faking fouls (i.e., flopping).
• Most importantly, a renewed enforcement of rules that limit physical play."

I think this is great. Coach Collins has been on record favoring a shorter shot clock and eliminating live ball time outs. Limiting physical play could be good or bad for NU: Collins seems to want his team to be tough on the defensive end, but NU hasn't always had enough athletes to be tough in the Big 10, so it might be a net plus for the Cats.

 

[Walker Fan]

This is great for more enjoyable and fast paced game. It goes along with Collins' hope to recruit more athletic players who can run the floor and speed up the tempo. It will place more (maybe just a little more) emphasis on PGs (e.g. McIntosh) who don't have to have the game micro-managed by controlling coaches like Izzo and Ryan when they don't have a lot of NBA talent on their roster. I think that it will place less emphasis on having a dominant center camped out under the basket which could expand the importance of recruiting a stretch 5 center who can hit baseline jumpers or jumpers on the elbow. Yes, I know we have Olah this season, but the 7'0" center who dominates the lane is becoming less frequent in today's game.

 

[TheC]

The 10 second rule is also interesting. I wonder if this will cause more teams to press. A timeout can no longer be used to bail you out of a pressure situation in the back court.

 

[pawildcat]

I can already see the faking fouls penalties leading to multiple controversies. Reducing the number of timeouts is good, although why restrict that to the second half? I think the 30-second clock will just result in more hastily jacked last-second shots. We'll see. The 10-second halfcourt rule is interesting and might actually accomplish the stated goal of pushing play.

 

[hdhntr1]

I can already see the faking fouls penalties leading to multiple controversies. Reducing the number of timeouts is good, although why restrict that to the second half? I think the 30-second clock will just result in more hastily jacked last-second shots. We'll see. The 10-second halfcourt rule is interesting and might actually accomplish the stated goal of pushing play.

I honestly do not get that. Your are given what 5 for the entire game of which at least one has to be used in the first half so the most you can have is 4. In the pros they get like 6 or 7. Don't see the reason for the reduction.

I have never been able to understand how you can avoid a 10 second call by calling a time out and then getting another 10 seconds.

 

[hdhntr1]

The NCAA has proposed a number of rule changes for men's hoops starting this fall:

"Pending expected approval from the men's basketball oversight committee, the key changes are these:
• Reducing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30.
• Reducing the number of second-half timeouts by one for each team; eliminating coaches calling live-ball timeouts; reducing the amount of time to replace a player who has fouled out; and adjusting media timeout procedures.
• Allowing teams a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball past halfcourt, even if a timeout is called.
• Expanding the restricted arc under the basket from three feet to four feet.
• Penalties for faking fouls (i.e., flopping).
• Most importantly, a renewed enforcement of rules that limit physical play."

I think this is great. Coach Collins has been on record favoring a shorter shot clock and eliminating live ball time outs. Limiting physical play could be good or bad for NU: Collins seems to want his team to be tough on the defensive end, but NU hasn't always had enough athletes to be tough in the Big 10, so it might be a net plus for the Cats.

Most look OK , but not sure why they want to reduce the timeouts. I mean you get 5 per game and one must be used in the first half. Expanding the arc I have mixed feelings especially unless the arc is 4 ft in the pros. Faking foul calls would probably lead to a lot of controversy. I have never understood how you can get a new clock for the backcourt by calling a timeout.

 

[NUCat320]

I honestly do not get that. Your are given what 5 for the entire game of which at least one has to be used in the first half so the most you can have is 4. In the pros they get like 6 or 7. Don't see the reason for the reduction.

I have never been able to understand how you can avoid a 10 second call by calling a time out and then getting another 10 seconds.

With TV timeouts every four minutes, there were too many stoppages. I'm totally in favor.

Now, the 'live ball' timeout rule - does that simply mean that a player, but not the coach, needs to call timeout? Or does that mean timeouts are only allowed after made baskets or natural stoppages in play? I don't get that change, but I guess there's value in it.

 

[Sec.112]

If I understand the changes correctly, it's going to be the wild west in the backcourt. I think defense is going to take on a WHOLE new emphasis.

If the ball is inbounded and a player gets stuck in the corner, he can't call a timeout anymore, right? In the meantime, precious seconds are ticking away at the same time.

If I were a coach, I'd start loading up on big guards for defensive purposes (calling Dr. Lindsey). Good teams are going to trap all over the place. As a generic college basketball fan, I love it!!! As an NU fan, I'm a little scared.

 

[DonatelloCat]

The NCAA has proposed a number of rule changes for men's hoops starting this fall:

"Pending expected approval from the men's basketball oversight committee, the key changes are these:
• Reducing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30.
• Reducing the number of second-half timeouts by one for each team; eliminating coaches calling live-ball timeouts; reducing the amount of time to replace a player who has fouled out; and adjusting media timeout procedures.
• Allowing teams a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball past halfcourt, even if a timeout is called.
• Expanding the restricted arc under the basket from three feet to four feet.
• Penalties for faking fouls (i.e., flopping).
• Most importantly, a renewed enforcement of rules that limit physical play."

I think this is great. Coach Collins has been on record favoring a shorter shot clock and eliminating live ball time outs. Limiting physical play could be good or bad for NU: Collins seems to want his team to be tough on the defensive end, but NU hasn't always had enough athletes to be tough in the Big 10, so it might be a net plus for the Cats.

That's one that I hope doesn't pass. An extra foot just seems way too much, if you ask me (which admittedly, the NCAA did not).

 

[Styre]

If the ball is inbounded and a player gets stuck in the corner, he can't call a timeout anymore, right? In the meantime, precious seconds are ticking away at the same time.

No -- he can call a time out, it just won't reset the 10 second clock. So if 7 seconds have elapsed when he calls time out, his team will have only 3 seconds to get the ball over the time line when they inbound the ball.

 

[pawildcat]

With TV timeouts every four minutes, there were too many stoppages. I'm totally in favor.

Now, the 'live ball' timeout rule - does that simply mean that a player, but not the coach, needs to call timeout? Or does that mean timeouts are only allowed after made baskets or natural stoppages in play? I don't get that change, but I guess there's value in it.

This. It would be OK if there weren't all the TV timeouts, but those combined with the regular timeouts make the end of games agonizingly slow.

 

[Medill90]

That's one that I hope doesn't pass. An extra foot just seems way too much, if you ask me (which admittedly, the NCAA did not).

This was never part of basketball growing up and the game was just fine. Refs called charges....or didn't and the game went on. The line under the basket hasn't reduced the number of controversial calls...it's just given announcers something to talk about on replay.

Being set and in position on defense to warrant the charge was pretty clear. Now it's inside or outside of the area...and refs get it wrong. And it's whether or not the player has gone into his move ...which refs get wrong. And still whether position has been established.

Great example of where more rules and changes beget more rules and changes.

 

[Dugan15]

I know I am too old fashioned, but I am most excited about limiting physical play. I think it is extremely hard to enforce and change mindsets, so I expect it will slip back. The devil is in the details. It would be neat to see a video from the Rules Committee about how interpretations of acceptable physicality will change.

 

[hdhntr1]

If I understand the changes correctly, it's going to be the wild west in the backcourt. I think defense is going to take on a WHOLE new emphasis.

If the ball is inbounded and a player gets stuck in the corner, he can't call a timeout anymore, right? In the meantime, precious seconds are ticking away at the same time.

If I were a coach, I'd start loading up on big guards for defensive purposes (calling Dr. Lindsey). Good teams are going to trap all over the place. As a generic college basketball fan, I love it!!! As an NU fan, I'm a little scared.

Maybe it is just that the kid would have to be totally in control of the ball. None of those where the ball is being tied up or calling timeout while in the air and just before stepping out of bounds.

 

[willycat]

I know I am too old fashioned, but I am most excited about limiting physical play. I think it is extremely hard to enforce and change mindsets, so I expect it will slip back. The devil is in the details. It would be neat to see a video from the Rules Committee about how interpretations of acceptable physicality will change.

Actually I think that the only thing that will limit the wrestling matches down low is to remind the refs to not swallow their whistles. The one change I would really like to see happen is to not allow coaches to call for timeouts while the ball is in play. Also wish that they would stop football coaches from signaling timeouts from the sidelines.

 

[IdahoAlum]

Some very dramatic rules changes proposed for women: going to four, 10-minute quarters, moving the inbounds to the frontcourt on a backcourt timeout, over five-fouls a quarter will lead to two-shot bonus, etc. The women's game will more closely resemble the NBA rather than the men's game.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...e-recommends-moving-womens-games-four-quarter

 

[pawildcat]

Some very dramatic rules changes proposed for women: going to four, 10-minute quarters, moving the inbounds to the frontcourt on a backcourt timeout, over five-fouls a quarter will lead to two-shot bonus, etc. The women's game will more closely resemble the NBA rather than the men's game.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...e-recommends-moving-womens-games-four-quarter

Always thought moving the inbounds to the frontcourt on a timeout was a stupid rule.

 

[NJCat83588]

Always thought moving the inbounds to the frontcourt on a timeout was a stupid rule.

It is a stupid rule from a basketball purist sense. What is the point in holding the ball and shooting and scoring with only seconds left if the other team can take the ball out and get a good shot. But from the fans perspective, it is great. Trailing with only seconds left, you can still get a decent shot if you can inbound the ball at half-court. And the NBA is all about excitement and ratings!

 

[pawildcat]

It is a stupid rule from a basketball purist sense. What is the point in holding the ball and shooting and scoring with only seconds left if the other team can take the ball out and get a good shot. But from the fans perspective, it is great. Trailing with only seconds left, you can still get a decent shot if you can inbound the ball at half-court. And the NBA is all about excitement and ratings!

You can certainly make that argument, but I just don't see why a team should be rewarded for the act of calling a timeout.

 

[Sec.112]

No -- he can call a time out, it just won't reset the 10 second clock. So if 7 seconds have elapsed when he calls time out, his team will have only 3 seconds to get the ball over the time line when they inbound the ball.

But if the player trapped in the corner attempts to call a timeout, isn't that a live ball situation?

 

[Styre]

But from the fans perspective, it is great. Trailing with only seconds left, you can still get a decent shot if you can inbound the ball at half-court. And the NBA is all about excitement and ratings!

The rule doesn't make logical sense but it has inarguably made the NBA better and more exciting. I wish the college game would institute it -- there's nothing more exciting than watching a team try to throw a 70-foot pass and watching the ball sail harmlessly out of bounds, which is what happens 99% of the time.

 

[Styre]

But if the player trapped in the corner attempts to call a timeout, isn't that a live ball situation?

The proposed change says the coach can't call a live-ball timeout anymore. The players can still do it, as far as I can tell.

 

[beetlemania74]

The rule doesn't make logical sense but it has inarguably made the NBA better and more exciting. I wish the college game would institute it -- there's nothing more exciting than watching a team try to throw a 70-foot pass and watching the ball sail harmlessly out of bounds, which is what happens 99% of the time.

Of course, arguably, there's been no play in the history of college basketball more exciting and memorable than the G. Hill to Laettner pass to beat Kentucky in '92. Yes, 99% of the time these full-court passes fail, but the ones that work are fantastic (unless you're a Kentucky fan).

 

[beetlemania74]

This was never part of basketball growing up and the game was just fine. Refs called charges....or didn't and the game went on. The line under the basket hasn't reduced the number of controversial calls...it's just given announcers something to talk about on replay.

Being set and in position on defense to warrant the charge was pretty clear. Now it's inside or outside of the area...and refs get it wrong. And it's whether or not the player has gone into his move ...which refs get wrong. And still whether position has been established.

Great example of where more rules and changes beget more rules and changes.

NBA refs have a lot of trouble getting these charging calls right, and they're the cream of the crop in terms of officiating abilities. Heaven help the college refs...

I really don't like all the acting and flopping that goes on with trying to draw these charging calls under the basket. Seems like many times, the defender is still sliding into place as the guy with the ball is already in the air, but then with the flopping and screaming by the defender, the refs are suckered into calling the charge. This is only going to be worse in college basketball.

 

[NJCat83588]

NBA refs have a lot of trouble getting these charging calls right, and they're the cream of the crop in terms of officiating abilities. Heaven help the college refs...

I really don't like all the acting and flopping that goes on with trying to draw these charging calls under the basket. Seems like many times, the defender is still sliding into place as the guy with the ball is already in the air, but then with the flopping and screaming by the defender, the refs are suckered into calling the charge. This is only going to be worse in college basketball.

The solution? Get rid of the charging call. Make the defender make a clean play. Allow the offensive guy to go to the bucket. This would open up the game more. Charging is a dumb foul, it rewards being passive on defense.

 

[Medill90]

The solution? Get rid of the charging call. Make the defender make a clean play. Allow the offensive guy to go to the bucket. This would open up the game more. Charging is a dumb foul, it rewards being passive on defense.

If the charging call was eliminated Lebron James could score 200 points a game....on an off night.

Why not remove the stupid line under the basket and leave it to the refs' judgement. Was the defender set and not underneath the basket or not?

 

[beetlemania74]

The solution? Get rid of the charging call. Make the defender make a clean play. Allow the offensive guy to go to the bucket. This would open up the game more. Charging is a dumb foul, it rewards being passive on defense.

You can't completely take the charging call out of the game. There are some times when the offensive player is out of control and just barrels into a set defender. That's a charge, rightfully so. But I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in recent years, with too many charging calls being made. Keeps a lot of players from taking the ball strong to the basket. Basketball is a physical game, and in my opinion, the NBA is trying too hard to move away from that. "Flagrant 1" calls on hard fouls, lots of offensive and defensive foul calls when players are trying to establish position in the post, charging calls when guys take it strong to the basket.....the NBA needs to let them play. Yes, you have to protect the players, but it's becoming ridiculous.

 

[Sec.112]

The proposed change says the coach can't call a live-ball timeout anymore. The players can still do it, as far as I can tell.

Ohhhhhh. Thanks for the clarification.

Seems like an odd distinction. Is there another instance in any sport where the on-field group has different game management privileges than the bench?

 

[Sec.112]

NBA refs have a lot of trouble getting these charging calls right, and they're the cream of the crop in terms of officiating abilities.

The discussion of the charge call in the NBA is a hornets nest. I think you need to go FAR beyond the rulebook to straighten out that situation.

The charge call would be made more consistently in the NBA if the rulebook was the only influence - not the importance of superstars and "winning" teams.

 

[NUCat320]

Of course, arguably, there's been no play in the history of college basketball more exciting and memorable than the G. Hill to Laettner pass to beat Kentucky in '92. Yes, 99% of the time these full-court passes fail, but the ones that work are fantastic (unless you're a Kentucky fan).

It's so memorable because it's nearly impossible to pull off. Duke, Bryce Drew in the first round, Big Country hitting a half-courter, and not many others.

In the NBA, we've probably seen ten successful half court inbounds plays this postseason alone.

I think the ncaa should absolutely implement inbounding from half court on timeouts. Games *are* supposed to be exciting, right?

You can also argue that, with timeouts being reduced, there is a cost to timeouts and an additional strategic layer to using timeouts early. Using this thought process, rewarding teams just for using a timeout seems less ridiculous.

 

[Styre]

Seems like an odd distinction. Is there another instance in any sport where the on-field group has different game management privileges than the bench?

Basketball is the only one of the major sports that allows you to call a timeout during live action, so there's really no comparison. But it wasn't that long ago in college hoops that coaches weren't permitted to call timeouts.

 

[willycat]

Basketball is the only one of the major sports that allows you to call a timeout during live action, so there's really no comparison. But it wasn't that long ago in college hoops that coaches weren't permitted to call timeouts.

If I'm not mistaken, a way back in the 60's maybe, college coaches had to remain seated while the ball was in play.

 

[catsattackfor3]

This is great for more enjoyable and fast paced game. It goes along with Collins' hope to recruit more athletic players who can run the floor and speed up the tempo. It will place more (maybe just a little more) emphasis on PGs (e.g. McIntosh) who don't have to have the game micro-managed by controlling coaches like Izzo and Ryan when they don't have a lot of NBA talent on their roster. I think that it will place less emphasis on having a dominant center camped out under the basket which could expand the importance of recruiting a stretch 5 center who can hit baseline jumpers or jumpers on the elbow. Yes, I know we have Olah this season, but the 7'0" center who dominates the lane is becoming less frequent in today's game.

Ok answer me this teams cannot run offense in 35 seconds but now are supposed to in 30?? Many experts believe this may cause scoring to go down unless skills improve. This actually is better for teams like MSU and Wisconsin because they play a pack line defense and dare teams to hit outside jumpers. More possessions may not mean more scoring.

 

[pschatz25]

The rule doesn't make logical sense but it has inarguably made the NBA better and more exciting. I wish the college game would institute it -- there's nothing more exciting than watching a team try to throw a 70-foot pass and watching the ball sail harmlessly out of bounds, which is what happens 99% of the time.

It WAS pretty exciting when Michigan did exactly that and gave us a great opportunity to beat them in regulation last season.

I hate the rule, but I know it's not going anywhere either.

 

[IdahoAlum]

Ok answer me this teams cannot run offense in 35 seconds but now are supposed to in 30?? Many experts believe this may cause scoring to go down unless skills improve. This actually is better for teams like MSU and Wisconsin because they play a pack line defense and dare teams to hit outside jumpers. More possessions may not mean more scoring.

Quoting Brian Hamilton from S/I: " And there will be a renewed emphasis on reining in physicality across every square inch of the floor, from dribblers on the perimeter to players jostling in the post to would-be scorers moving away from the ball. This last bit may do more to enhance scoring than shaving five seconds off possession time."

 

[NJCat83588]

Quoting Brian Hamilton from S/I: " And there will be a renewed emphasis on reining in physicality across every square inch of the floor, from dribblers on the perimeter to players jostling in the post to would-be scorers moving away from the ball. This last bit may do more to enhance scoring than shaving five seconds off possession time."

Didn't they try to do that at the start of last season? It led to foul fests and everyone was unhappy. Easier said than done in practice, IMHO.

 

[IdahoAlum]

Didn't they try to do that at the start of last season? It led to foul fests and everyone was unhappy. Easier said than done in practice, IMHO.

Yes and yes it is.

 

[pawildcat]

Didn't they try to do that at the start of last season? It led to foul fests and everyone was unhappy. Easier said than done in practice, IMHO.

It's tough. With the size and speed of today's players, it's hard to avoid contact when play moves near the basket. Get a kid like Haas of Purdue and a couple of other big studs under the basket, and physicality becomes almost unavoidable.