Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philly

    NCAA Rules Committe Formally proposed charge arc

    The NCAA Rules committee, chaired by Mike Brey, officially proposed a three foot restricted area under the basket, from which a secondary defender cannot take a charge. This is bigger than the 2 foot arc that was tested during several in-season tournaments, but smaller than the NBA's 4 foot arc. The reasons for the size were that data showed that a 2 foot arc was ineffective, but a four foot arc would be too close to the edge of the lane, which is only 12 feet wide in college as opposed to the 16 foot lane in the NBA.

    Several other rules were also proposed. The first, which I will call the "Jay Bilas Rule" simply changes the names of "Intentional" and "Flagrant" fouls will be "Flagrant 1" and "Flagrant 2" fouls. Brey cited that "intent" has nothing to do with the rule, which is something that Bilas has complained about on several occasions. Perhaps Bilas, who was a Duke assistant at the same time as Brey, even made a phone call to lobby for the change.

    Coaches will now have an NFL style "challenge" system to request that officials go to the monitor if they aren't already going to do so on their own. If there is no change to the play, a timeout (or technical foul if no timeouts remain) will be charged. There is no limit to the number of requests.

    Teams who are late returning to the court after timeouts will receive only a single warning about it. On subsequent occurrences, The officials will resume play without waiting.

    On the omen's side, the thee point line will merge with the men's line, ending the ugly and confusing practice of painting two different lines so close to each other. The women will also adopt the charge circle and change the names of intentional and flagrant fouls.

    They will also experiment in exhibitions with a 10 second half-court count similar to the men's rule.

    All of these rules still need final approval from the NCAA next month, but that is normally just a formality. If approved, they will all be implemented at the start of next season.
    Pratt '09
    GO DUKE!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    The NCAA Rules committee, chaired by Mike Brey, officially proposed a three foot restricted area under the basket, from which a secondary defender cannot take a charge. This is bigger than the 2 foot arc that was tested during several in-season tournaments, but smaller than the NBA's 4 foot arc. The reasons for the size were that data showed that a 2 foot arc was ineffective, but a four foot arc would be too close to the edge of the lane, which is only 12 feet wide in college as opposed to the 16 foot lane in the NBA.
    Sounds good to me

    Coaches will now have an NFL style "challenge" system to request that officials go to the monitor if they aren't already going to do so on their own. If there is no change to the play, a timeout (or technical foul if no timeouts remain) will be charged. There is no limit to the number of requests.
    It is this rule change with which I have the most 'beef.' now I might not fully understand it, but the cases in which refs go to the monitor are severely limited under the current rule. Now tell me if I'm misunderstanding the proposed change: but now officials will not go to the monitor unless a coach requests it: the point being to shorten the end game scramble when the refs check every play on the monitor. Now I have a problem with this as we are moving away from getting a play right. A coach may be pretty sure they should have more time on the clock or that a shot should have been a 2, but only have 1 timeout and don't want to risk it. So now the coach has to make a choice....effectively you're gambling the outcome of the game...which is just stupid....now if the rule proposal says that refs can still go to the monitors whenever they want to and the challenges are for 'other' things...like out of bounds plays, fouls...etc....then I don't really care....but I think this is a terrible rule and hope it doesn't pass
    Teams who are late returning to the court after timeouts will receive only a single warning about it. On subsequent occurrences, The officials will resume play without waiting.
    thus eliminating 'timeout's over' from the crazies' reperatory.
    On the omen's side, the thee point line will merge with the men's line, ending the ugly and confusing practice of painting two different lines so close to each other. The women will also adopt the charge circle and change the names of intentional and flagrant fouls.

    They will also experiment in exhibitions with a 10 second half-court count similar to the men's rule.
    Its about time for the 10 second half court rule! honestly...theres no reason for the women's game to be stuck in the dark ages....i would like all the rules to be the same eventually, but understand the need for a shorter shot clock...I never had any trouble with the two lines on the floor...i've watched a lot of both mens and women's basketball and sort of ignored the other line...guess it makes it easier for schools and refs and players, so can't argue
    usa

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Sounds good to me
    It is this rule change with which I have the most 'beef.' now I might not fully understand it, but the cases in which refs go to the monitor are severely limited under the current rule. Now tell me if I'm misunderstanding the proposed change: but now officials will not go to the monitor unless a coach requests it: the point being to shorten the end game scramble when the refs check every play on the monitor. Now I have a problem with this as we are moving away from getting a play right. A coach may be pretty sure they should have more time on the clock or that a shot should have been a 2, but only have 1 timeout and don't want to risk it. So now the coach has to make a choice....effectively you're gambling the outcome of the game...which is just stupid....now if the rule proposal says that refs can still go to the monitors whenever they want to and the challenges are for 'other' things...like out of bounds plays, fouls...etc....then I don't really care....but I think this is a terrible rule and hope it doesn't pass
    It really doesn't specify, but given the bottom of the barrel placement in the article, and the fact that it wasn't even mentioned in ESPN's writeup of the subject, I assume it is the latter. I probably shouldn't have said "NFL style" because that implies that challenges are the only way to get reviews. I said that only because once a challenge happens, it is the NFL style where you get it right or lose a timeout. The way I interpreted it, you can only request it for the same things that the refs would review anyway, but you can force them to take a look, even if they aren't aware or don't think that it is necessary. I'm sure that this was put in specifically to prevent a St. John's/Rutgers situation, where the refs didn't go to the monitor despite complaints, even though the play was reviewable. Other end game issues, like UNC/Washington, probably helped reinforce the need for the rule.
    Pratt '09
    GO DUKE!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    The NCAA Rules committee, chaired by Mike Brey, officially proposed a three foot restricted area under the basket, from which a secondary defender cannot take a charge. This is bigger than the 2 foot arc that was tested during several in-season tournaments, but smaller than the NBA's 4 foot arc. The reasons for the size were that data showed that a 2 foot arc was ineffective, but a four foot arc would be too close to the edge of the lane, which is only 12 feet wide in college as opposed to the 16 foot lane in the NBA.
    This sounds good, but only if the arc is actually shown on the floor. Having an imaginary line has been a complete joke.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    This sounds good, but only if the arc is actually shown on the floor. Having an imaginary line has been a complete joke.
    It will be. They tested this 2 foot circle this in some early tournaments this year and deemed too small. The rule with no arc mostly happened because adding or moving lines on the floor is a longer process than adding a rule.
    Pratt '09
    GO DUKE!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    Teams who are late returning to the court after timeouts will receive only a single warning about it. On subsequent occurrences, The officials will resume play without waiting.
    Implementation of this one should be . . . interesting. Especially in an end-of-game situation. Can you imagine? Tie game, timeout. Team A has the ball out of bounds under their basket with a second to go. Team B, who has already had a warning, fails to come out on time. The official hands the ball to team A's in-bounder, he tosses it to his teammate standing alone under the basket, the teammate lays it in and the game is over, with team B never having even taken the court.

    Dogs and cats, living together.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Implementation of this one should be . . . interesting. Especially in an end-of-game situation. Can you imagine? Tie game, timeout. Team A has the ball out of bounds under their basket with a second to go. Team B, who has already had a warning, fails to come out on time. The official hands the ball to team A's in-bounder, he tosses it to his teammate standing alone under the basket, the teammate lays it in and the game is over, with team B never having even taken the court.
    Well, that will be good incentive to have your team out by the end of the timeout then...now won't it....
    usa

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Implementation of this one should be . . . interesting. Especially in an end-of-game situation. Can you imagine? Tie game, timeout. Team A has the ball out of bounds under their basket with a second to go. Team B, who has already had a warning, fails to come out on time. The official hands the ball to team A's in-bounder, he tosses it to his teammate standing alone under the basket, the teammate lays it in and the game is over, with team B never having even taken the court.
    Couple of things with this... what is to come out "on time". Break the huddle, or start walking towards the ball, or fully set up on the court? What about a player tying his shoelaces, tucking in his shirt, etc... does the ref put the ball in play regardless? I'd like to see the first game this happens where the ref really does put the ball in play before all 10 players are "in the game".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by gep View Post
    Couple of things with this... what is to come out "on time". Break the huddle, or start walking towards the ball, or fully set up on the court? What about a player tying his shoelaces, tucking in his shirt, etc... does the ref put the ball in play regardless? I'd like to see the first game this happens where the ref really does put the ball in play before all 10 players are "in the game".
    I think they generally mean huddle broken, chairs off the floor....clock stops anyway for shoe laces (shirt tuck ins happen whenever)....i'm sure there will be a 'clarification' if this becomes rule
    usa

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Well, that will be good incentive to have your team out by the end of the timeout then...now won't it....
    Yes, and cutting off a thief's hands is usually an effective disincentive to steal again. But kind of draconian nonetheless.

    I'd say a technical foul might more properly be in order if the warning didn't work and the team was late again coming out of a TO. Or even a loss of a timeout, though that would be problematic if the team didn't have any left anyway. Maybe then it would be a T instead.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Yes, and cutting off a thief's hands is usually an effective disincentive to steal again. But kind of draconian nonetheless.

    I'd say a technical foul might more properly be in order if the warning didn't work and the team was late again coming out of a TO. Or even a loss of a timeout, though that would be problematic if the team didn't have any left anyway. Maybe then it would be a T instead.
    That's fair enough. Timeouts, unlike in game fouls and calls, are RELATIVELY black and white...you're either ready to play or you're not. Since the team has 100% control over whether they are ready to play or not (as opposed to a foul call) I think draconian measures are acceptable (though I do like the loss of timeout idea better)
    usa

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    That's fair enough. Timeouts, unlike in game fouls and calls, are RELATIVELY black and white...you're either ready to play or you're not. Since the team has 100% control over whether they are ready to play or not (as opposed to a foul call) I think draconian measures are acceptable (though I do like the loss of timeout idea better)
    I also like the "loss of timeout"... and if none left, then a technical. After all, not coming back from a timeout when supposed to essentially lengthens the timeout, or if counting actual time, uses up the next available timeout.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by gep View Post
    I also like the "loss of timeout"... and if none left, then a technical. After all, not coming back from a timeout when supposed to essentially lengthens the timeout, or if counting actual time, uses up the next available timeout.
    Unfortunately, I think this would be frowned upon for tv reasons.....networks would probably rather more shorter commercials spread evenly, rather than a large chunk together...since when you have a long break of commercials, people are more likely to get up and do something else.....its also kind of hard for the announcers, "welcome back to the game....uh oh...podunk state didn't come back from the timeout...they are charged another one....and with duke up by 50 with 12 minutes left, we'll take another break" (given stuff like this DOES happen, but i'm sure the TV people hate it)
    usa

Similar Threads

  1. NCAA Rules Prohibit Seth Curry From Championship Ring
    By wgl1228 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 11:19 AM
  2. Haith selected to NCAA Division I Regional Advisory Committe
    By Chard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2010, 01:42 PM
  3. NCAA Rules: Student-Athletes and Earning
    By ElSid in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 06:37 PM
  4. Time to formally name our Three Ss
    By lpd1982 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 12:34 AM
  5. Proposed Old Well Facelift
    By dukepsy1963 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 10:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •