PDA

View Full Version : New rules off to a good start



Wheat/"/"/"
12-13-2013, 09:55 AM
I was among those who have railed for years that the college game had gotten too physical, so count me in with the crowd that is happy with the changes (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-12-12/early-numbers-suggest-improved-game).

Let's hope that the players and coaches at all levels increase the focus on better footwork, ball handling, screening, shooting, passing and anticipation to win games and not the pushing, grabbing and hacking we have seen way too much of the past two decades that allowed weaker teams to keep from being beat on a play or to control a games tempo.

Let the best players play, open the flow of the games and let's marvel at big guys showing off great athletic skill.

Keep an eye out for a Rick Barnes retirement announcement any day now....:)

MCFinARL
12-13-2013, 11:06 AM
Generally speaking, I guess I would agree that the rules, overall, are moving in the right direction, though I remain a little concerned that defenses are so limited in what they can do. But the adjustment period has been painful, as both refs and players figure out what they are doing. One game every drive to the hoop seems to result in a foul on the defense, the next, almost none do. As teams get into their league seasons and each league's refs develop some consistency in calling games, it should get better.

BlueDevilBrowns
12-13-2013, 11:26 AM
Generally speaking, I guess I would agree that the rules, overall, are moving in the right direction, though I remain a little concerned that defenses are so limited in what they can do. But the adjustment period has been painful, as both refs and players figure out what they are doing. One game every drive to the hoop seems to result in a foul on the defense, the next, almost none do. As teams get into their league seasons and each league's refs develop some consistency in calling games, it should get better.


Until the NCAAT, when I fear that the inconsistencies will return. My guess is we will see games officiated differently by conference(i.e. B1G being more physical, ACC more finesse, etc.) due to familiarity of referee's officiating styles and team's playing styles.

When we get to tournament time, I predict it will be again a mishmash of one game being overly-physical and another being overly-officiated. It's what makes this year's March Madness even more unpredictable than in year's past.

jv001
12-13-2013, 11:30 AM
Until the NCAAT, when I fear that the inconsistencies will return. My guess is we will see games officiated differently by conference(i.e. B1G being more physical, ACC more finesse, etc.) due to familiarity of referee's officiating styles and team's playing styles.

When we get to tournament time, I predict it will be again a mishmash of one game being overly-physical and another being overly-officiated. It's what makes this year's March Madness even more unpredictable than in year's past.

I agree with your "guess". The college game may go back to how the games were called years ago. The ACC was a finesse league and when the NCAAT rolled around, the games were rougher and the ACC teams struggled against the physical play. Let's hope this doesn't happen in 2014. GoDuke!

Kedsy
12-13-2013, 11:42 AM
I agree with your "guess". The college game may go back to how the games were called years ago. The ACC was a finesse league and when the NCAAT rolled around, the games were rougher and the ACC teams struggled against the physical play. Let's hope this doesn't happen in 2014. GoDuke!

I assume you're talking about the '80s and '90s? While ACC teams may have struggled, the truth is that from 1981 to 2002, the league had 23 Final Four teams in those 22 years, so some of our teams didn't struggle all that much.

That said, I agree about the possibility that the "new rules" will be inconsistently called during the NCAAT. It's been a worry of mine since the new rules were announced.

MChambers
12-13-2013, 12:20 PM
Overall, I think the rule changes and changes in interpretations are good things, but I worry about inconsistency like some others here. I'm also troubled by result thus far that the changes seem to encourage zone defenses. I don't think that's an improvement.

PSurprise
12-13-2013, 12:27 PM
Are refs "governed" by the NCAA or the conferences? It would maybe seem to do some good for ALL the refs to get together and discuss rules changes, issues, etc at the beginning of the year and maybe right before tournament time. That has always been one of my gripes with the tournament, how each game takes on it's own personality often based on how/what the refs are calling it. I'm sure it's hard for the players to adjust every weekend

Wheat/"/"/"
12-13-2013, 01:57 PM
I think we are going to see games called unevenly just like always. It's the human part of the game. But at least we now have a baseline of where we want to go with the new focus.

Player match ups usually determine how a game unfolds, and the refs will struggle sometimes to set a games pace.

It's up to the players to recognize how a game is being called and adjust. There is a mental part of the game that is as important or even more so than how high a kid can jump.

Good teams will adapt and win games.

Kfanarmy
12-13-2013, 02:42 PM
Are refs "governed" by the NCAA or the conferences? It would maybe seem to do some good for ALL the refs to get together and discuss rules changes, issues, etc at the beginning of the year and maybe right before tournament time. That has always been one of my gripes with the tournament, how each game takes on it's own personality often based on how/what the refs are calling it. I'm sure it's hard for the players to adjust every weekend

Recommend reading this arcticle from ESPN: http://espn.go.com/ncb/notebook/_/page/rules130209/are-new-rules-working

If accurate, the NCAA supervisor of officials did his best to educate every official on the rules and their implementation: "To make that happen with these new rules, Adams spent the better part of the early fall barnstorming. He met with the NABC board of directors and the NCAA tournament selection committee, with all of the coordinators in every Division I, II and III conference. And finally, he met with every official during four regional clinics."

BigWayne
12-13-2013, 02:59 PM
Are refs "governed" by the NCAA or the conferences? It would maybe seem to do some good for ALL the refs to get together and discuss rules changes, issues, etc at the beginning of the year and maybe right before tournament time. That has always been one of my gripes with the tournament, how each game takes on it's own personality often based on how/what the refs are calling it. I'm sure it's hard for the players to adjust every weekend

It's explained a bit in this very interesting article: http://espn.go.com/ncb/notebook/_/page/rules130209/are-new-rules-working

Basically, the regular season is run by the conferences and then the NCAA takes over for the tournament. Each conference gets to pick one "conference champion" ref that goes to the tournament, so there are some "16 seeds" doing tournament games.

Tom B.
12-13-2013, 03:22 PM
I assume you're talking about the '80s and '90s? While ACC teams may have struggled, the truth is that from 1981 to 2002, the league had 23 Final Four teams in those 22 years, so some of our teams didn't struggle all that much.

That said, I agree about the possibility that the "new rules" will be inconsistently called during the NCAAT. It's been a worry of mine since the new rules were announced.




The ACC also had five national championships in the 80s and 90s. No other conference had more than three in the same time span, unless you count Louisville (which was then a member of the now-defunct Metro Conference) as a member of the Big East. Then the Big East ties the ACC with five.

Or perhaps he was talking about the time period from 2000 forward? But the ACC has hardly struggled in that time frame, either -- 10 Final Fours and five National Championships in 14 years. Again, that's more titles than any other conference in the same span.

Bob Green
12-13-2013, 03:46 PM
I assume you're talking about the '80s and '90s?

I'm fairly confident jv001 is referring to the '70s. My memory tells me the ACC had some really talented teams get beat in physical games during the tournament. Alabama trounced Carolina by repeatedly dumping the ball inside to a very physical big man named Douglas (I can't recall his first name off the top of my head).

TruBlu
12-13-2013, 04:19 PM
I'm fairly confident jv001 is referring to the '70s. My memory tells me the ACC had some really talented teams get beat in physical games during the tournament. Alabama trounced Carolina by repeatedly dumping the ball inside to a very physical big man named Douglas (I can't recall his first name off the top of my head).

I do not recall that game, but I just became a big fan of (No First Name) Douglas.

Kedsy
12-13-2013, 04:28 PM
I'm fairly confident jv001 is referring to the '70s. My memory tells me the ACC had some really talented teams get beat in physical games during the tournament. Alabama trounced Carolina by repeatedly dumping the ball inside to a very physical big man named Douglas (I can't recall his first name off the top of my head).

OK, the 70s was certainly the ACC's worst showing in the last five decades, with only four Final Fours and one championship. But I assume part of that was the league was restricted to one representative for half the decade and just two for a couple years after that. And still, four Final Fours in ten years isn't a poor conference performance by any means, especially considering the league also had two or three Elite Eight finishes as well.

Bob Green
12-13-2013, 04:33 PM
I do not recall that game, but I just became a big fan of (No First Name) Douglas.

It was Leon Douglas (I googled it) who led Alabama to a 79-64 win over North Carolina.

Bob Green
12-13-2013, 04:37 PM
OK, the 70s was certainly the ACC's worst showing in the last five decades, with only four Final Fours and one championship. But I assume part of that was the league was restricted to one representative for half the decade and just two for a couple years after that. And still, four Final Fours in ten years isn't a poor conference performance by any means, especially considering the league also had two or three Elite Eight finishes as well.

I agree the results do not represent a poor conference performance, but I clearly remember the perception existed in barber shop discussions across North Carolina that the ACC was hampered in the tournament due to it being a finesse league.

loran16
12-13-2013, 05:29 PM
For the record, Pomeroy had a good post on how fouls trend this year compared to previous years:
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/our_brave_new_world


If the difference in the trend of turnover rate is real, it tells me that defenses are adjusting to the new rules interpretations, and not necessarily in the way that coaches like Izzo and Larry Eustachy fear. We may be on the path to a more free-flowing game, with more scoring and a less drastic drop in turnover rate than it looks based on the early data. Sure, there will be a few more fouls called, but we’ll see fewer players in foul trouble as the season continues, as was the case in previous seasons.


Also of note is there's evidence charges are being called again:
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/are_charges_coming_back

Olympic Fan
12-13-2013, 06:34 PM
The ACC also had five national championships in the 80s and 90s. No other conference had more than three in the same time span, unless you count Louisville (which was then a member of the now-defunct Metro Conference) as a member of the Big East. Then the Big East ties the ACC with five.

Or perhaps he was talking about the time period from 2000 forward? But the ACC has hardly struggled in that time frame, either -- 10 Final Fours and five National Championships in 14 years. Again, that's more titles than any other conference in the same span.

I think the feeling was that the ACC was hurt in postseason by rough play in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1950s, the ACC was plagued by fights on the court (culminating in the famous Art Heyman-Larry Brown fight in 1961). The ACC response was to get very ticky-tack in the way it was called. As a result, ACC teams often struggled against the more physical game allowed in the NCAA Tournament.

In the early 1980s, a new generation of ACC coaches argued that the league needed to change its officiating approach. They wanted an ex-coach to run the officiating in the league. Jim Valvano suggested Fred Barakat, the former coach at Fairfield. Barakat brought the concept of "no advantage, no foul" to the league.

A lot of people griped about Barakat, but in his more than 20 years as director of ACC officials through most of the 80-s, all of the 90s and into the 21st century, the ACC had the best NCAA record of any conference ... in fact, it had the best NCAA record any conference has ever had over an extended period. Maybe it's just coincidence, but when Barakat retired and was replaced by John Clougherty, the ACC's overall performance in postseason dropped almost immediately.

weezie
12-13-2013, 09:08 PM
Anybody seen Karl Hess up in this joint?

-jk
12-13-2013, 09:20 PM
Anybody seen Karl Hess up in this joint?

He's been goin' mobile (http://statsheet.com/mcb/referees/karl-hess/schedule) as the Who used to say.

-jk

Kedsy
12-13-2013, 11:18 PM
I think the feeling was that the ACC was hurt in postseason by rough play in the 1960s and 1970s.

Well, as we discussed earlier, you could make an argument in the '70s, with "only" four Final Fours (one championship) and three Elite Eight appearances for the league in those ten years.

But I don't see it at all for the '60s. A decade in which each conference was only allowed one team in the tourney per season, in a decade where UCLA dominated the championships, and the ACC had 7 Final Fours and 2 Elite Eights in 10 years. Doesn't sound to me as if the league was hurt too badly.

throatybeard
12-14-2013, 12:20 AM
I miss Dick Paparo.

Wait, no, I don't. I miss everyone complaining about Dick Paparo.

Wait, no, I don't.

Did I ever tell y'all when I was at Duke Young Writers' Camp in about 1988, I got Lou Bello's autograph? Alex Haley too. The 'gends, man.

http://www.thedeadballera.com/Obits/MinorLeaguers/Obits_B/Bello.Lou.Obit001.html

BD80
12-14-2013, 07:55 AM
Well, as we discussed earlier, you could make an argument in the '70s, with "only" four Final Fours (one championship) and three Elite Eight appearances for the league in those ten years.

But I don't see it at all for the '60s. A decade in which each conference was only allowed one team in the tourney per season, in a decade where UCLA dominated the championships, and the ACC had 7 Final Fours and 2 Elite Eights in 10 years. Doesn't sound to me as if the league was hurt too badly.

From '71 to '78 the ACC had only 7 schools.

Kfanarmy
01-16-2014, 02:25 PM
My perception watching the last few Duke games, AZ-UCLA, UK-Arkansas, and a couple of others are that the officiating is still very inconsistent WRT defense. There is an awful lot of contact going on that was being called early on in the season. I didn't think the Clemson game was very well officiated - lots of contact (I know Duke lost so that colored my perspective a bit). In any case, I think it is worth reading Mr Adams, NCAA National Men's Basketball Officiating Coordinator, comments on officiating from last week. If interested:

https://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/front/104883/Site/Posts

FerryFor50
01-16-2014, 02:28 PM
My perception watching the last few Duke games, AZ-UCLA, UK-Arkansas, and a couple of others are that the officiating is still very inconsistent WRT defense. There is an awful lot of contact going on that was being called early on in the season. I didn't think the Clemson game was very well officiated - lots of contact (I know Duke lost so that colored my perspective a bit). In any case, I think it is worth reading Mr Adams, NCAA National Men's Basketball Officiating Coordinator, comments on officiating from last week. If interested:

https://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/front/104883/Site/Posts

I've been screaming about #2 for weeks now (particularly in regards to Aaron Craft).

Matches
01-17-2014, 08:18 AM
I agree it's been very inconsistent, but then again it's always been inconsistent. Trends do emerge, though - it seems to me that the refs have missed the point of the shift in emphasis. They're calling a ton of ticky-tack fouls on the perimeter but still allowing people to get mauled in the paint. The whole idea was to improve the flow of games by making movement easier, but what they're doing has the exact opposite effect. The post is still a wrestling match AND the game gets halted frequently by cheap hand-check fouls.

orrnot
01-17-2014, 10:25 AM
By the way, Wheat, let me be the first to thank you for jinxing your Heels before their date with Texas:

"Keep an eye out for a Rick Barnes retirement announcement any day now...."

AtlDuke72
01-17-2014, 11:13 AM
- . . . The whole idea was to improve the flow of games by making movement easier, but what they're doing has the exact opposite effect. The post is still a wrestling match AND the game gets halted frequently by cheap hand-check fouls.

I went to the Wake - State game on Wednesday. Exciting one point game? Wrong - there were 70 foul shots in the game. It was miserable to watch. Basically, all either side had to do was drive to the hoop and the refs would call a foul including a number of phantom calls. There is no way to draw a charge under the new interpretation of the rules so how is anybody supposed to stop somebody with the ball ? The emphasis on keeping the defender's hands off was a good change. The new way charges are called is awful.

CDu
01-17-2014, 12:29 PM
I went to the Wake - State game on Wednesday. Exciting one point game? Wrong - there were 70 foul shots in the game. It was miserable to watch. Basically, all either side had to do was drive to the hoop and the refs would call a foul including a number of phantom calls. There is no way to draw a charge under the new interpretation of the rules so how is anybody supposed to stop somebody with the ball ? The emphasis on keeping the defender's hands off was a good change. The new way charges are called is awful.

I agree that the games are often unwatchable. I completely disagree with you about the charge: both in terms of the "impossibility" of drawing one and in that the new way is awful.

I think the charge had become called WAY too often. Guys were sliding in very late, falling down, and getting charges called. They added the restricted circle, but all that did was cause officials to just look at the line and ignore when the defender got there. What they've done is make the charge harder to achieve, but not impossible (I'd guesstimate that we still see at least a charge per game).

Jumping into the path of a player after he starts to take off should not be rewarded as good defense. If you're there before he starts to take off and you hold that position and the player runs you over, that's a charge. And that's STILL called a charge. But I want to see actual defense, not undercutting a defenseless shooter.

You can absolutely still play defense. You just have to do it with your feet and not your hands. The NBA guys have figured it out (and did so pretty quickly). Move your feet, keep your hands up, use a little bit of body if you need to. It's harder to play defense, but defense is mostly about hard work anyway.

And it's not really much of a rules change aside from the interpretation on the charge. It's just them actually calling the fouls that were already supposed to be fouls.

If the officials can actually maintain consistency with it (and it appears that they've failed to do so), the players will adjust. It may take a season, but in the long run I think it's better for the game. Unless you enjoy watching 45-41 slugfests like we've been seeing the last few years.

AtlDuke72
01-17-2014, 01:24 PM
I agree that the games are often unwatchable. I completely disagree with you about the charge: both in terms of the "impossibility" of drawing one and in that the new way is awful.

Jumping into the path of a player after he starts to take off should not be rewarded as good defense.

I just disagree. The rule IMO should be that you have to be set before the offensive player leaves the ground. "After he starts to take off" seems to be interpreted now that as soon as it looks like the offensive player is thinking about shooting it is too late to get set.