PDA

View Full Version : Blocking/Charging Rules



SoCalDukeFan
05-08-2009, 11:07 AM
I understand that the blocking/charging call is very difficult and appreciate the need to make it easier for the officials.

The front page links to a story on a proposed rule change.

But why not make it an automatic charge rather than an automatic block?
If you go charging in under the basket .and there are two defenders then you are charging Same for the NBA's area under the basket.

SoCal

MChambers
05-08-2009, 11:11 AM
I understand that the blocking/charging call is very difficult and appreciate the need to make it easier for the officials.

The front page links to a story on a proposed rule change.

But why not make it an automatic charge rather than an automatic block?
If you go charging in under the basket .and there are two defenders then you are charging Same for the NBA's area under the basket.

SoCal

Then you will have fewer dunks and less entertainment value.

moonpie23
05-08-2009, 11:11 AM
i wonder what the reasoning behind NOT painting the circle is? that would make it easier to call.....

Jarhead
05-08-2009, 11:16 AM
How will this be interpreted if the primary defender stands his ground, and the guy with the ball backs into him to get to the basket? That should be an automatic offensive foul. There has to be some consideration as to who originates the contact.

CameronBornAndBred
05-08-2009, 11:19 AM
Dick Vitale will be happy with one less thing to complain about now. Although I'm sure we will hear him talk about what a great rule change it is for at least half the season.
I do like the change, I'm just not looking forward to Dickie V going on about it again.

johaad
05-08-2009, 11:24 AM
Dick Vitale will be happy with one less thing to complain about now. Although I'm sure we will here him talk about what a great rule change it is for at least half the season.
I do like the change, I'm just not looking forward to Dickie V going on about it again.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

allenmurray
05-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Then you will have fewer dunks and less entertainment value.

Perhpas we could outlaw defense altogether. We could simply have judges sit on the sidelines (like in gymnastics) and score the dunks.

devildeac
05-08-2009, 11:41 AM
How will this be interpreted if the primary defender stands his ground, and the guy with the ball backs into him to get to the basket? That should be an automatic offensive foul. There has to be some consideration as to who originates the contact.


Why? There wasn't with Hans the last 4 years.:rolleyes::mad::(

devildeac
05-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Perhpas we could outlaw defense altogether. We could simply have judges sit on the sidelines (like in gymnastics) and score the dunks.

That would NEVER work, allen. Why not? Because Duke would still get all the calls...:rolleyes:

Unless the Communist bloc judges voted en mass against the Devils...:rolleyes:

Lulu
05-08-2009, 06:21 PM
This charging/block thing is a horrible rule, especially without painting the arc on the floor. The officials already pretty much never call a charge under the basket, but at least they are left with some discretion when a player is completely out of control.

Seriously, I cannot think of one reason not to put the arc on the floor if you're going to make this rule. They're making an absolute rule (block only) while somehow assuming or hoping the officials will always have a good position and angle by which to judge the play. None of this makes sense. Will there still be a lot of no-calls? This is just free reign for the offensive player to destroy the defender. If I was a coach, I'd just have to tell my players that whenever they see a defender under the basket, hit him as hard as possible to make sure the refs blow the whistle. Then you get a free foul call, no matter how deliberate and regardless that you initiated it.

And when exactly does a "secondary defender" turn into the "primary defender". Does he have to establish this position "before" the offensive player gets by the primary, in order for it to be an automatic block? Yeah, we can all imagine the perfect fast break or driving situation they had in mind when designing this rule, but when they try to put this rule into effect for all situations... it just seems there should be lots of arguments over how it's interpreted, even more than there are now.

As for the free throw rule, ideally they could just send the player with the nearest free throw percentage, on the court, to the line. Don't ask me how that works out early-season. The new rule is better, but STILL isn't going to stop any team's "Shaq" from feigning injury in that case - just a tad less incentive for doing so. The only problem with this rule is that it now penalizes legitimate injuries. So now if the guy you're fouling isn't the worst shooter on the team, you might as well make sure you hurt him as much as possible, too, just so your coach can send their Shaq to the line. I didn't even consider until now the often found worst-shooting/best-rebounding correlation. The least they could do is revert to the old rule in intentional foul situations.

cspan37421
05-09-2009, 08:03 AM
You said it well, Lulu. This rule allows an obvious charge to magically become a block simply because of where it occurs on the court. It's a bit like saying that the rule against traveling is waived in the paint and on fast breaks, but not elsewhere. Wait a second....

Jarhead
05-09-2009, 11:51 AM
You said it well, Lulu. This rule allows an obvious charge to magically become a block simply because of where it occurs on the court. It's a bit like saying that the rule against traveling is waived in the paint and on fast breaks, but not elsewhere. Wait a second....
That's a really good point, cspan. How do we bring more attention to it? There is a pretty good indication that the new idea is a knee jerk reaction with little thought behind it.

darkblue2769
05-09-2009, 12:59 PM
While I understand the desire to find a better way to determine charging/blocking, I must say this is the STUPIDEST rule change I have seen in a while. As stated above, what's to stop offensive players from simply laying out defenders under the basket if they know that no matter what it will be a blocking foul? We all know that coaches are going to allow (if not direct) their players to do this if it means they get an easy foul on the other team, with nothing the other team can do to stop them. Sure, sometimes officials get the call wrong with the current rule, but I can live with that. At least the current rule makes sense.

Is there any way we can complain (to the NCAA) about this rule change?

Virginian
05-09-2009, 07:12 PM
That would NEVER work, allen. Why not? Because Duke would still get all the calls...:rolleyes:

Unless the Communist bloc judges voted en mass against the Devils...:rolleyes:

You have me blowing Pepsi out my nose all over the keyboard. Really, enough already!

More than ROFL.

cruxer
05-11-2009, 08:07 AM
... what's to stop offensive players from simply laying out defenders under the basket if they know that no matter what it will be a blocking foul?

I think the intent is to prevent secondary defenders from setting up for the charge in the basket area at all! This is a good thing. If the primary defender gets beaten, and nobody rotates before the offensive player gets to the basket, the play is over! Nobody likes charges taken under the basket, that's always been understood, and this rule simply attempts to codify it.

Since the emphasis is on secondary defender, blocks/charges for the on-the-ball defender presumably wouldn't be affected by the rule change; therefore, a post-up player wouldn't necessarily be able to simply bulldoze his way to the basket. Those situations are always very fluid anyway. Rarely is a primary defender completely stationary while an offensive player barrels over him.

I think the rule change is a move in the right direction with an attempt to give the officials some discretion, hence no designated block/charge zone. I'm not sure why they didn't go all the way, after all it seems to work fairly well in the NBA.

-c

devildeac
05-11-2009, 08:35 AM
You have me blowing Pepsi out my nose all over the keyboard. Really, enough already!

More than ROFL.

LMAO, too?;):rolleyes:

Thanks.

-jk
05-11-2009, 10:13 AM
I'm baffled at how this rule could work in the real world.

If a guard beats his defender and drives, can someone rotate over to draw the charge? How do you decide when he's become the primary defender?

How do you decide who the primary defender in a zone defense is?

Does this effectively outlaw the double-team? And if not, how do you decide which the primary defender is? If the offensive player can determine the secondary defender, can't he just hook his way around him or flatten him? Ah, the fun Elton would have had with this rule!

It seems more than a bit more complicated than saying you can't draw a charge in a protected area of the court.

-jk

cruxer
05-11-2009, 12:12 PM
I think (without any basis or knowledge of the rule-writers' minds of course!) that secondary defender simply means help defender. They're simply trying to codify what everyone has inferred what the block/charge call is anyway. That is, you can't plant yourself under the basket and expect to draw a charge. I think it would have been simpler just to implement the NBA rule, since it works pretty well at that level.

-c

4decadedukie
05-11-2009, 12:59 PM
This most unfortunate rules change will further exacerbate the dominance of offense over defense. It may be good for ESPN highlights and even for revenues, but it is bad for the game.

-jk
05-11-2009, 02:58 PM
I think (without any basis or knowledge of the rule-writers' minds of course!) that secondary defender simply means help defender. They're simply trying to codify what everyone has inferred what the block/charge call is anyway. That is, you can't plant yourself under the basket and expect to draw a charge. I think it would have been simpler just to implement the NBA rule, since it works pretty well at that level.

-c

I disagree with "what everyone has inferred" - plenty of players are able to step in, establish a legal guarding position, and have the refs call it a charge. And I still don't understand where a zone defense fits in where someone is, by design, planted under the basket. Or where a double-team fits in.

The 2008 rule book allows any player to hold a position on the court if they get there first and legally (Rule 4, Art 3) and that time and distance aren't an issue (Rule 4, Art 4c). The 2008 rules don't define or distinguish "primary defender" and "secondary defender"; a defender is a defender. I guess we'll have to wait to see how they dance around these issues for any meaningful analysis.

If they really want to do this, just take the NBA exclusion area.

-jk

Newton_14
05-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Trying to make the call without the benefit of the line is going to be nightmare for college ref's. I am against this rule and believe it will lead to controversy..

Sliding in at the last minute and getting under a guy already going up for a layup should always be a block, but outside of that, a charge is a charge is a charge, no matter who the defender is or where he is positioned on the floor...

just my opinion....

captmojo
05-11-2009, 09:42 PM
Block/Charge. Standard NCAA committee thing applies. Fix what isn't broken.
Why not change what is wrong with the game? Two points come to mind for me.
1) possession tie-ups--award the ball to the defense
2) free-throws--offer choice of free throws or possession with new shot clock. In case of injury, ball out of bounds to the fouled team.

One day they'll outlaw zone D, create 24 second shot clock, draw the circle under the hole, pay the players, award 3 free throws to make 2...wait. Even the NBA did away with that one.

Newton_14
05-11-2009, 09:58 PM
Block/Charge. Standard NCAA committee thing applies. Fix what isn't broken.
Why not change what is wrong with the game? Two points come to mind for me.
1) possession tie-ups--award the ball to the defense
2) free-throws--offer choice of free throws or possession with new shot clock. In case of injury, ball out of bounds to the fouled team.

One day they'll outlaw zone D, create 24 second shot clock, draw the circle under the hole, pay the players, award 3 free throws to make 2...wait. Even the NBA did away with that one.

May I suggest a slight alteration to your 2nd point? In close games going down to the wire, putting a guy on the line to shoot pressure packed free throws, to me, adds high drama and it is part of the game.

However, watching a team down double digits with less than 2 minutes to go drag a sure loss out with constant fouling is boring. So I would set a rule where if the team is down 10 or more under 2 minutes, and they committ a non-shooting foul, I would give the opponent the choice of taking the free throws or taking the ball out of bounds with a new shot clock...

mapei
05-11-2009, 10:37 PM
In close games going down to the wire, putting a guy on the line to shoot pressure packed free throws, to me, adds high drama and it is part of the game.


It adds high drama, but for the wrong reason. It rewards fouling. Why, then, call it a "foul"?

cruxer
05-12-2009, 01:23 AM
Block/Charge. Standard NCAA committee thing applies. Fix what isn't broken.

I disagree that the block/charge calls aren't currently broken. Nothing is more frustrating than to see players who, rather than play actual help defense, flop to the ground under the basket on the offensive player's drive. The call is usually so quick that it must be the most difficult for an official to call correctly; consequently, they get it wrong. A lot. I think the purpose of the change is to encourage help defenders to play actual defense. Like go for a block or a steal rather than just flopping.

Whether or not this actually happens remains to be seen. Again, I think a change to the NBA rule would be both simpler for the officials and more effective.

-c

bjornolf
05-12-2009, 08:24 AM
2) free-throws--offer choice of free throws or possession with new shot clock. In case of injury, ball out of bounds to the fouled team.


I don't like giving a new shot clock. What if you play good D for 25 seconds, then foul when actually trying to steal the ball, not just hacking? That's pretty harsh. How about add five seconds to the shot clock? Or go to 15 seconds if it's under 15 seconds left on the shot clock but leave it where it is if it's over 15 seconds? I can see resetting the shot clock if the player is fouling right away, but I don't like artificially giving the team that's ahead too much more advantage against the clock if the team that's down is actually trying to play defense. Just a thought.

Lulu
05-12-2009, 08:52 AM
I have no idea how to codify this, so it's pretty much a worthless post, but as for the free-throws-at-end-of-game situation, I'll bet most of us would agree that if "intentional foul" meant "intentional foul" there would be no problem.

When a team is behind they ought to start playing more aggressively since it is their only chance to get back into the game. However, no game should award deliberate breaking of the rules. The real issue here is that the officials aren't allowed/able to call intentional fouls even when it is very clear that's what is going on. It really seems like an impossible thing to implement, unless everyone just agreed to trust an official's judgment in some very subjective situations... and that's not going to happen. I do wish they could be a bit more liberal with the call though.

The idea of a "triple-bonus" is suddenly intriguing though...whether based on time or number of fouls.

Foul situations, regrettable or not, have just become a part of the game. I remember when I first started playing how absurd this seemed, but once enough years go by it just becomes part of the game.

Indoor66
05-12-2009, 09:03 AM
Foul situations, regrettable or not, have just become a part of the game. I remember when I first started playing how absurd this seemed, but once enough years go by it just becomes part of the game.

Another thing to thank Dean for....:(

captmojo
05-12-2009, 08:59 PM
I don't like giving a new shot clock. ...
This already exists.

They should be allowed to review game tape at the sidelines and stop being so self-righteous as to think they might never be subject to a mistake.

Newton_14
05-12-2009, 09:55 PM
It adds high drama, but for the wrong reason. It rewards fouling. Why, then, call it a "foul"?

I have to respectfully disagree. It penalizes fouling just like at any other time in the game. If you foul your opponent, he is rewarded with 2 foul shot opportunities. That is a reward to the team that was fouled not to the team that committed the foul. If they miss the free throws, that is their fault for not taking advantage of the reward given to them.

Fouling on purpose does not always work, especially against a team that knocks down a high percentage of their free throws, so it is a gamble to employ that strategy. It is only bad for the game when a team is down so far they have little to no chance of having the strategy work. In those circumstances it only serves to delay the inevitable.

One of the most exciting Duke comebacks ever was the Gone in 55 Seconds game at Maryland, which never would have been possible if Maryland would have had the option to take the ball out of bounds rather than shooting the free throws they ended up choking on...

Just my opinion, and I do see yours and others points when it comes to those games where the strategy has no chance of working and it takes 30 minutes to play the last 3 minutes of the game. (and that usually happens in the 7pm game on ESPN when Duke is in the 9pm game and we miss the first 5 minutes of the Duke game to watch a team down 12 with 30 seconds left continue to foul and call timeouts!)

rasputin
05-13-2009, 05:32 PM
Block/Charge. Standard NCAA committee thing applies. Fix what isn't broken.
Why not change what is wrong with the game? Two points come to mind for me.
1) possession tie-ups--award the ball to the defense


They tried this once and it didn't work. It wasn't clear who the "defense" actually was if the ball had been knocked around and a new "possession" may or may not have been established. In such cases, the team that had been the defense can become the offense, negating the intent of the rule.

Spret42
05-14-2009, 09:11 AM
I disagree that the block/charge calls aren't currently broken. Nothing is more frustrating than to see players who, rather than play actual help defense, flop to the ground under the basket on the offensive player's drive. The call is usually so quick that it must be the most difficult for an official to call correctly; consequently, they get it wrong. A lot. I think the purpose of the change is to encourage help defenders to play actual defense. Like go for a block or a steal rather than just flopping.

Whether or not this actually happens remains to be seen. Again, I think a change to the NBA rule would be both simpler for the officials and more effective.

-c

Basketball is supposed to be a vertical game. Stepping in to "help" on a driving player by falling onto your rear end isn't defense. You play defense by leaping with the player, using angles and such to either block the shot or alter it and then get the rebound. I am trying to remember the great NBA defenders, Bill Russell, Scottie Pippen, Olajuwon, Rodman etc playing defense by sliding in and falling down. They used leaping ability and angles.

Great defenders are called "Erasers" for a reason. The aren't called "Scooters."

See Barkley at :44 and the Nuggets player at 1:17 for the perfect examples of players actually playing defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJfmbOXF5n0

-jk
06-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Well, it's official (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jG3Y7lt3FiAlZDWjzRjnpzN7vdQQD98MN6UO1).

I still want to see a definition of "secondary defenders" with regards to a zone defense, and how tell Chaney's match-up zone from a K's switching man.

-jk

calltheobvious
06-08-2009, 11:49 PM
This already exists.

They should be allowed to review game tape at the sidelines and stop being so self-righteous as to think they might never be subject to a mistake.

I'd give you a pancake bunny, but I'm too tired.

Which plays--that aren't already reviewable under the rules--would you like to see be made reviewable?

NSDukeFan
06-09-2009, 08:56 AM
Basketball is supposed to be a vertical game. Stepping in to "help" on a driving player by falling onto your rear end isn't defense. You play defense by leaping with the player, using angles and such to either block the shot or alter it and then get the rebound. I am trying to remember the great NBA defenders, Bill Russell, Scottie Pippen, Olajuwon, Rodman etc playing defense by sliding in and falling down. They used leaping ability and angles.

Great defenders are called "Erasers" for a reason. The aren't called "Scooters."

See Barkley at :44 and the Nuggets player at 1:17 for the perfect examples of players actually playing defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJfmbOXF5n0

The video you showed is great, and brings back some great memories of what an athletic freak Sir Charles was, as well as Olajuwon. But I have to disagree with your main point though as using your criteria, Battier is not a great defender and Manute Bol is? The great defenders you mentioned all did a great job moving their feet and I think that guards can be great defenders by moving their feet and drawing charges as well.

eightyearoldsdude
06-10-2009, 12:09 PM
My understanding is that they did not require an arc to be painted because it would necessitate a four(!) year waiting period for schools to redo the floors. I read that on SI or ESPN somewhere. That is even more baffling--esp. since they were able to redo the 3 point line without much difficulty.

I think the rule is a step in the right direction--but then, I'm a Heel fan. It sounds like it's more controversial over here. Does anyone have stats on the percentage of defensive possessions (oxymoron, I know) that result in charges? There is a perception that Duke takes a relatively high percentage of charges, but it would be good to see if that's actually true.

UrinalCake
06-10-2009, 12:45 PM
A few years ago they experimented with the rule of "at the end of the game the team that gets fouled can choose to take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws." I believe they just did it during preseason tournament games. For whatever reason, it didn't stick. I do think that the refs should more readily call intentional fouls in these end-of-game situations. If you're not going for the ball and are just grabbing a guy to get a foul call, that should be an intentional.

Regarding charges, I also dislike when the defender makes it his goal to draw a charge, not to play defense. This is often evident on fast breaks, where the defender gets in front and then falls over, knowing there's little chance of stopping the play. I must admit that Duke is as guilty of this type of defense as anyone, and I'm not a fan of it. Duke tries to exploit it because they know that this is how the refs call these plays, and I think that if the refs stopped calling them, Duke would adjust and we'd all be happier.

NSDukeFan
06-10-2009, 02:43 PM
Regarding charges, I also dislike when the defender makes it his goal to draw a charge, not to play defense. This is often evident on fast breaks, where the defender gets in front and then falls over, knowing there's little chance of stopping the play. I must admit that Duke is as guilty of this type of defense as anyone, and I'm not a fan of it. Duke tries to exploit it because they know that this is how the refs call these plays, and I think that if the refs stopped calling them, Duke would adjust and we'd all be happier.

If it is called correctly, a defender's goal of playing defense leads to the charge drawn as he is beating the offensive player to the spot on the floor he would like to get to and the offensive player causes contact. This would both be great defense and a charge drawn. Is the alternative to play block and steal defense? (not moving your feet and trying to get the steal or block)

94duke
06-10-2009, 03:15 PM
So, let me get this straight. If Team A is playing defense and fouls a player on Team B hard enough to injure him, then Team A gets the benefit of also choosing who shoots the foul shots? Wow. Extra bonus. You get to hurt someone and then pick the worst shooter on the floor to shoot the foul shots!

Does that sound bad to anyone else besides me?

Just wondering.

Mods,
Sorry if this should be in its own thread. I was thinking it was a thread about all the rule changes, not just the block/charge. My bad. Does it need its own thread?

aheel4ever
06-10-2009, 03:33 PM
I think the main point, which some but not all seem to appreciate, is where the rule applies, which is under the basket. If the secondary defender is anywhere else, the charge is possible. I believe the theory is that even if you beat the offensive player to the "spot", if the spot is under the basket, that's not necessarily good defense. I tend to agree. They do need the line, though.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
06-10-2009, 03:48 PM
If it is called correctly, a defender's goal of playing defense leads to the charge drawn as he is beating the offensive player to the spot on the floor he would like to get to and the offensive player causes contact. This would both be great defense and a charge drawn. Is the alternative to play block and steal defense? (not moving your feet and trying to get the steal or block)

Ditto. I understand why they are incentivizing out-of-control drives and punishing smart D: big dunks for Sportscenter. But I don't like it at all.

Spret42
06-10-2009, 04:53 PM
The video you showed is great, and brings back some great memories of what an athletic freak Sir Charles was, as well as Olajuwon. But I have to disagree with your main point though as using your criteria, Battier is not a great defender and Manute Bol is? The great defenders you mentioned all did a great job moving their feet and I think that guards can be great defenders by moving their feet and drawing charges as well.

Battier is and was a great defender. He has gotten even better in the NBA. He better knows when to use a players aggressiveness against him to draw a charge and when to use angles and leaping ability to alter shots. He doesn't step in and fall over as much as he did in college. Especially on driving players. He works angles more.

Too many refs, especially at the college level, are rewarding players for sliding on their backsides. I have no problem with defenders, especially guards, moving their feet and trying to beat guys to spots. However the charge is a player control foul. Just "being in position" isn't enough, the offensive player needs to fail to either change direction or end his dribble resulting in contact.

The problem is when defenders are sliding in front of guys and falling over at the slightest contact, especially when it is done 25 feet away from the basket. You often see guys establish guarding position and start falling backward before the offensive player has made contact.

Drawing a true charge is very difficult. The offensive player must not attempt to change direction or end his dribble and then fail to avoid contact.

I was taught that the charge was something you took when a guy was clearly playing out of control. You didn't try to slide in and get knocked backwards because two out of the three possibilities were bad, either there was a no call and you were out position, or you were called for a block. It was better to keep your feet moving, get your hands in passing lanes and then contest and block shots.

I understand this may all be a stylistic argument on my part.

Spret42
06-10-2009, 05:11 PM
If it is called correctly, a defender's goal of playing defense leads to the charge drawn as he is beating the offensive player to the spot on the floor he would like to get to and the offensive player causes contact. This would both be great defense and a charge drawn. Is the alternative to play block and steal defense? (not moving your feet and trying to get the steal or block)

The alternative is to move your feet in order cut off the angles to the basket and then to play block and steal defense.

Why is it one or the other argument? Why do so many college basketball fans think "smart" is sliding in and falling over.

Who says a defender who moves his feet, then looks to steal the ball, block a shot or force a tougher shot that is rebounded by teammates for fast break opportunities isn't smart?

NSDukeFan
06-11-2009, 08:58 AM
The alternative is to move your feet in order cut off the angles to the basket and then to play block and steal defense.

Why is it one or the other argument? Why do so many college basketball fans think "smart" is sliding in and falling over.

Who says a defender who moves his feet, then looks to steal the ball, block a shot or force a tougher shot that is rebounded by teammates for fast break opportunities isn't smart?

There is nothing wrong with your last question and I think we agree more than I initially thought. The big point in my estimation is moving the feet. I also agree the acting component happens too much in terms of drawing charges and this is a negative, but drawing charges itself is not. Most of the time, someone who draws a charge takes a lot of contact and the wind blowing fall down charge is a poor call that doesn't happen often but gets shown a lot when it does.

The game is played at such a great speed at both college and pro levels (actually at any level) that many offensive players are at least temporarily out of control and if you move your feet and get to a position well you can be in position to draw a charge quite often, see Battier, Shane.

UrinalCake
06-11-2009, 11:12 AM
I agree with NSDukeFan that drawing a charge can be the result of playing good defense... maybe what we need instead is a technical foul call for flopping, similar to what they do in soccer. Of course that opens up a whole new can of problems... a blown call is bad enough when it should have been a charge but they call a block. If they added a T on the defender on top of that, it would be a really really bad call.

94Duke makes a good point about injuring a player, which I hadn't thought about. I think the rule was put in place to address the issue of a team pretending that a player is injured in order to sub in a better free throw shooter; so maybe a better solution would be that if a player goes out for injury, he must sit out for a length of time, like five minutes of game time or whatever.

Highlander
06-11-2009, 08:50 PM
Block/Charge. Standard NCAA committee thing applies. Fix what isn't broken.
Why not change what is wrong with the game? Two points come to mind for me.
1) possession tie-ups--award the ball to the defense


The experimented with this a few years ago and it was a disaster IMO. When there were scrums for the ball, who is on offense or defense is largely irrelevant. Take the following situation. Player A takes and misses a shot. Someone else on the other team grabs the rebound. He is immediately tied up by Player A and a jump ball is called. Well, since the opposing team had the ball, they are on offense, even though they are under Player A's basket. Player A's team gets the ball, because technically he's on defense.

If you're going to reward the defense with every loose ball, I think you need to define the defense as the team NOT attacking the closest basket, and not necessarily who has the ball at a given moment.

Personally, I don't see what's so awful about alternating possession. It's what they do on the playground (calling firsts), and is effective at ensuring smaller players aren't penalized in jump ball situations.

But that's just my opinion, FWIW.