New NCAA rules

[-jk]

It's official: there will be a 3' charge arc (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8574/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CyIG11DD) under the basket next year.

Also, the Women's game will move the 3 point line back to the current Men's.

And the Women will experiment with a 10 second rule.

-jk

[uh_no]

It's official: there will be a 3' charge arc (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8574/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CyIG11DD) under the basket next year.

Also, the Women's game will move the 3 point line back to the current Men's.

And the Women will experiment with a 10 second rule.

-jk

was there any ruling on the change in the 'challenge' rule

I like that they are trying to standardize the men's/women's rules....the differences are largely anachronistic.....and a 10 second rule with a 30 second shot clock will certainly liven up the game at least

[-jk]

was there any ruling on the change in the 'challenge' rule

I like that they are trying to standardize the men's/women's rules....the differences are largely anachronistic.....and a 10 second rule with a 30 second shot clock will certainly liven up the game at least

Yes (m.ncaa.com/s/4643/5?itemPos=4&divCode=), there is a new challenge procedure, as well as a faster return from timeout, and a double foul change.

[DukeGirl4ever]

I cannot WAIT to see what the women's game will be like with the 10 second rule. I have always felt that is one of the main reason's why fans of men's basketball are not interested in watching the women's game.

I love watching teams who get up and challenge and I think this will make the women's game more fast-paced. However, a down side is that there could be more blow outs with big time schools facing nobodies. In any case, it will be interested to watch how the new rules change the style of the game.

[Oriole Way]

I really wish the men's game would add make the shot clock 30 seconds instead of 35. It would greatly improve the game.

[elvis14]

I really wish the men's game would add make the shot clock 30 seconds instead of 35. It would greatly improve the game.

Can't say that I agree with that. I think that as the shot clock gets shorter, players have to play more 1 one 1 to get a shot off. I like the 35 second shot clock, it fosters more team work and helps differentiate NCAAB from NBA ball (I like both and I like the differences). Just my $0.02.

[Olympic Fan]

It's official: there will be a 3' charge arc (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8574/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CyIG11DD) under the basket next year.



-jk

Just to clarify, the only rule change relating to the arc under the basket is that it will now be painted on the floor, just as in the NBA.

The rule defining the area under the basket as a no-charge zone went unto effect last season, but te officials had to imagine the arc.

But it's the same rule -- any player camped under the bakset is supposed to be called for a block -- no matter how long he was there or how set he was.

[DukeGirl4ever]

But it's the same rule -- any player camped under the bakset is supposed to be called for a block -- no matter how long he was there or how set he was.

But now we as fans will have evidence through replay and the arc when the refs make a bad call. :p

[rsvman]

I really wish the men's game would add make the shot clock 30 seconds instead of 35. It would greatly improve the game.

Couldn't disagree more strongly.

In fact, I think the game would be improved by LENGTHENING the shot clock out to 40 or even 45 seconds.

Hard to even imagine a Duke basketball fan wanting a shorter shot clock. Had the shot clock been 45 seconds in 2004, we would've had one more ACC championship.

[ChillinDuke]

In fact, I think the game would be improved by LENGTHENING the shot clock out to 40 or even 45 seconds.

The stall-ball opponents are cringing in their computer chairs. :)

[UrinalCake]

I cannot WAIT to see what the women's game will be like with the 10 second rule. I have always felt that is one of the main reason's why fans of men's basketball are not interested in watching the women's game.

I think the fewer the differences between the men's and women's game, the better. If the women want to be considered equals as far as the entertainment value their game provide, then they should be playing by the same rules. I'm only a casual observer of the women's game but I almost never see a full court press. I have to imagine that the 10 second rule is a big part of that. It also makes it harder for a team that's trailing late in the game to come back because they can't trap in the backcourt and force turnovers. So I applaud this change as another step towards evening the playing field between the men and women.

[sagegrouse]

I think the fewer the differences between the men's and women's game, the better. If the women want to be considered equals as far as the entertainment value their game provide, then they should be playing by the same rules. I'm only a casual observer of the women's game but I almost never see a full court press. I have to imagine that the 10 second rule is a big part of that. It also makes it harder for a team that's trailing late in the game to come back because they can't trap in the backcourt and force turnovers. So I applaud this change as another step towards evening the playing field between the men and women.

You may be right about wholesale adoption of the men's rules making the women's game more exciting, but -- for me -- the big improvement will be to clean up the court by not having two #$%@#$%$^%^!!! arcs out there.

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Just to clarify, the only rule change relating to the arc under the basket is that it will now be painted on the floor, just as in the NBA.

The rule defining the area under the basket as a no-charge zone went unto effect last season, but te officials had to imagine the arc.

But it's the same rule -- any player camped under the bakset is supposed to be called for a block -- no matter how long he was there or how set he was.

Is this right? I thought it was only for secondary defenders? Meaning if the man you're primarily guarding plows into you, you can still take a charge. Does the no-charge zone really apply to primary defenders too?

Either way, the rule is stupid without the painted arc, so I'm glad they're putting it in.

[Bluedog]

You may be right about wholesale adoption of the men's rules making the women's game more exciting, but -- for me -- the big improvement will be to clean up the court by not having two #$%@#$%$^%^!!! arcs out there.

sagegrouse

As noted above, the women's game 3-point line is moving back to be the same as the men's. So you'll have your wish with only one three-point arc next season. :)

[Newton_14]

Is this right? I thought it was only for secondary defenders? Meaning if the man you're primarily guarding plows into you, you can still take a charge. Does the no-charge zone really apply to primary defenders too?

Either way, the rule is stupid without the painted arc, so I'm glad they're putting it in.

You are correct. The rule is for secondary defenders only, not primary defenders.

[-jk]

Just to clarify, the only rule change relating to the arc under the basket is that it will now be painted on the floor, just as in the NBA.

The rule defining the area under the basket as a no-charge zone went unto effect last season, but te officials had to imagine the arc.

But it's the same rule -- any player camped under the bakset is supposed to be called for a block -- no matter how long he was there or how set he was.

While it's the same rule generally - secondary defenders can't draw a charge under the basket, the space "under the basket" has grown a lot.

The rule from last season was: "“Under the basket” is defined as from the front and side of the ring to the front of the backboard. A player is considered under the basket when any part of either foot is in this area. (Note: An approved ruling will indicate that a player straddling this area is considered to be under the basket.)". That works out to a box about 24" by 18".

As I understand it, the new rule has an arc 3 feet from the center of the rim - six feet wide.

Will it make a big difference? I don't know, but it's a lot more real estate.

-jk

[hurleyfor3]

Hard to even imagine a Duke basketball fan wanting a shorter shot clock. Had the shot clock been 45 seconds in 2004, we would've had one more ACC championship.

Had it been :45 in 2004 and we had told Luol not to shoot, we would have won one more NCAA championship. Maybe even two more (2002).

[1 24 90]

Yes (m.ncaa.com/s/4643/5?itemPos=4&divCode=), there is a new challenge procedure, as well as a faster return from timeout, and a double foul change.

I'm confused about the "challenge". Could someone explain it to me? Also, the link takes me to some article about Amherst.

What is the faster return from timeout?

[-jk]

I'm confused about the "challenge". Could someone explain it to me? Also, the link takes me to some article about Amherst.

What is the faster return from timeout?

Sorry, they changed the destination of that link.

Try this one (www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/May/Rules+panel+approves+restricted+area+arc+for+Divis ion+I).

The challenge is to allow coaches to request a monitor review for potentially flagrant fouls. If wrong, it burns a TO.

For TOs, teams are supposed to return to the court after the first warning horn (which seems odd to me, as it's a warning that the TO ends in 15 seconds) or face a delay of game warning. Last year, the rule read (Section 10, Art. 10): "Sound a warning horn 15 seconds before the expiration of an intermission or charged timeout. A second signal shall be given at the expiration of an intermission or a charged timeout. Play shall be resumed immediately upon the sounding of the second signal."

Seems to me it's the team's responsibility to be ready as soon as the second horn sounds, not start getting ready after the warning horn.

-jk