Rule Changes

[Wahoo2000]

There's a healthy debate going on over on our board vis-a-vis rule changes people would like to see. Much of it sparked by the endless talking heads discussing how Virginia's (and some other schools, but we're the chief offender surely) slow pace of play is "ruining the game". It's really morphed from a discussion mostly on the shot clock to overall rule changes we'd like to see.

Since DBR is probably my favorite board for intelligent conversation regarding college hoops, I wanted to get your collective thoughts.

Personally, I'd like to see (in descending order of importance to me):

1. 30 second shot clock - 24 is probably too short for the college game, too little depth of skill for the hundreds of teams who can't recruit top 100 talent to be able to get a decent shot in that amount of time. Game overall would probably be uglier than it is now with the lengthy clock. (It would be great for teams stocked with NBA-caliber athletes though)

2. Go back to last year's block/charge changes. It was rough, but I expected it to take a couple of years for the refs to adapt to that change. Taking away some of the bang-bang nature of that call and giving the advantage to the offense forced teams to contest at the rim, rather than flop (which I hate - no offense meant to Duke... honestly).

3. If a team is struggling to get the ball out of the backcourt vs a press, and they call timeout, DO NOT reset the 10 second count. Don't give teams a pass against pressure just because they have timeouts left.

Some others have argued for a change to the held-ball system, but I think the one in place is about the best solution we can offer. Other propositions include giving teams in the double bonus the option of taking the ball out of bounds (I'd rather just shoot free throws).

[killerleft]

There's a healthy debate going on over on our board vis-a-vis rule changes people would like to see. Much of it sparked by the endless talking heads discussing how Virginia's (and some other schools, but we're the chief offender surely) slow pace of play is "ruining the game". It's really morphed from a discussion mostly on the shot clock to overall rule changes we'd like to see.

Since DBR is probably my favorite board for intelligent conversation regarding college hoops, I wanted to get your collective thoughts.

Personally, I'd like to see (in descending order of importance to me):

1. 30 second shot clock - 24 is probably too short for the college game, too little depth of skill for the hundreds of teams who can't recruit top 100 talent to be able to get a decent shot in that amount of time. Game overall would probably be uglier than it is now with the lengthy clock. (It would be great for teams stocked with NBA-caliber athletes though)

2. Go back to last year's block/charge changes. It was rough, but I expected it to take a couple of years for the refs to adapt to that change. Taking away some of the bang-bang nature of that call and giving the advantage to the offense forced teams to contest at the rim, rather than flop (which I hate - no offense meant to Duke... honestly).

3. If a team is struggling to get the ball out of the backcourt vs a press, and they call timeout, DO NOT reset the 10 second count. Don't give teams a pass against pressure just because they have timeouts left.

Some others have argued for a change to the held-ball system, but I think the one in place is about the best solution we can offer. Other propositions include giving teams in the double bonus the option of taking the ball out of bounds (I'd rather just shoot free throws).

I'll start off by saying that the block/charge rule from last year was a travesty, I say, a travesty, sir, which penalized teams that play good defense. The rule will just have to be interpreted as best they can by referees... harumph!! Nobody gets a free pass to my basket!!!

[andyw715]

NIT is using 30 second shot clock this year. Would be interesting to see how that pans out.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I agree with the shot clock going to 30 seconds, not because of UVA's style of play but to just speed the game up in general.

Jump ball at held balls

Timeouts dont reset the clock when bringing the ball up the floor to cross half court

Extend the three point line for the mens game

Also if you call a timeout on your side of the court, let the team decide where to take the ball out of bounds in the final 2 minutes of the game.

Extend the lane out some to allow more space for post players to operate. This goes hand in hand with the three point line being extended

I know a lot of old timers will hate some of these rules, but personally I think they would add excitement to the game. Which lets face it, at times is severely lacking in College hoops. No offense to UVA but that UVA- Louisville game was a bore fest from hell. I couldn't even watch. Heck I could barely watch our game against FSU last night. WE NEED TO MAKE RULES THAT SPEED UP THE GAME AND ADD EXCITEMENT

Also if the NBA changes the one in done rule which I doubt will happen anytime soon, the quality of players will increase and add to the excitement of the game.

[Matches]

Shorter shot clock is IMO a must - 30 seconds max. Way too much standing around in college BB while guards pass the ball around the perimeter pointlessly.

The OP's #3 seems like an obvious good tweak as well (and if the shot clock is going to be shortened we may also want to go from 10 seconds to 8).

I'd like to see changes geared toward opening the floor up more, similar to what the NBA has done. I wouldn't mind limitations on zone defense, not wholesale elimination but some guidelines similar to the NBA's.

I'd reduce each team's timeouts from five to four.

It may just be me but I find a LOT of college basketball now completely unwatchable unless I've got a rooting interest - didn't use to feel that way at all. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky but I went through a similar phase with the NBA post-Jordan and that turned around - after they tweaked the rules.

[Olympic Fan]

I know that talking heads see the change to a 30-second clock as a panacea, but I should point out that when the shot clock was reduced from 45 to 35 seconds in the early 1990s, scoring actually went DOWN not up. The theory is that teams had to work hard on defense for a shorter period and hence were more effective.

I know physical defensive play is often blamed for the declining scoring. But when officials crack down on such play -- as they did early last season -- it makes it extremely difficult to play any kind of aggressive defense. The crackdown on physical play (and abundance of touch fouls) actually benefited teams that were slowing things down -- it was tougher to pressure them. Coaches responded to the rules by playing more zone defense and that slows things down too.

What's the answer? I don't know. But in the future, I'd like to see more experimentation before new rules are implemented. Those that have been put in place in recent years have almost all slowed things down.

[CDu]

The biggest thing for me is not a rule change, but rather actually enforcing the rules correctly. Call fouls when a player is fouled (this is the single biggest problem with college basketball officiating right now). Get the block/charge call correct (regardless of the specifics on the rules, refs are terrible at getting this right). Don't let the scoring team grab the ball after a made basket. Call travels when a player travels. Call carries when a player carries it.

Aside from the refs actually doing their jobs correctly (and I realize it is a very difficult job), actual rules changes I'd like to see made:

1a. Get rid of the "5-second, closely-guarded" rule.
1b. Get rid of the "10-second" rule.
1c. Shorten the shot clock to 30 seconds (and I only say this as a compromise to allow 1a and 1b to get through).

I would like to see all three of these rules implemented together. It makes little sense to me to have a 10-second rule and a 5-second closely guarded rule (especially the latter). If you have a shot clock, who cares how you choose to use those 30 (or 35) seconds?

2. No fouling out of players, but each foul after a player's 4th (so 5th and beyond) automatically results in two shots and the ball for the other team. This would still require the coaches to decide whether or not to bench a player (or how to set your defense) with a player in foul trouble, but would not have games completely decided by a ref's quick whistles on a key player.

3. No more "one and one." On the 8th foul (and beyond) everything is a two-shot foul.

[toooskies]

More strictly enforce the rules we've got. Especially in the tournament, college basketball begins to resemble rugby. The harder it is for players to move off the ball, the less open they can get for shots, so the longer into the shot clock they get. (Of course, this isn't an issue the NCAA can solve, because it delegates managing officials to its member conferences. And conferences that allow playing like thugs see that as an advantage. Another reason why the NCAA is dumb.)

30 second shot clock has been a great idea for years, but I don't think it'll change the overall pace of many possessions. Its biggest effects would be encouraging strategies like the full-court press, which you never see anymore. It also would make games "in doubt" for more of the regulation clock, as stall-ball would take 5 fewer seconds off the clock.

Do not make every call have to be either a block or a charge. If the defender clearly has position, charge. If the defender clearly didn't, block. If it's a judgment call, don't blow the whistle (or stop play and award the ball on alternating possession). The rulebook is written to disallow judgment calls to be made, except in this one circumstance.

My never-going-to-happen item: hockey-ish continuation. I'm of the belief that a foul should never be a penalty to the offense, or be a viable strategy for the defense. If an offensive player is fouled, play may continue until the defense acquires the ball. Only award the and-one on fouls during shots. If the offense scores, they only get the 2 or 3 points and no free throws, but they get free throws if they miss (or are forced into a violation). Play stops after a make, so the fouling team loses its chances of a fast break and has to inbound.

Also leads to a faster game, since there are fewer free throws being shot, and the clock won't be stopped so frequently at the end of a close game because of fouls.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

More strictly enforce the rules we've got. Especially in the tournament, college basketball begins to resemble rugby. The harder it is for players to move off the ball, the less open they can get for shots, so the longer into the shot clock they get. (Of course, this isn't an issue the NCAA can solve, because it delegates managing officials to its member conferences. And conferences that allow playing like thugs see that as an advantage. Another reason why the NCAA is dumb.)

30 second shot clock has been a great idea for years, but I don't think it'll change the overall pace of many possessions. Its biggest effects would be encouraging strategies like the full-court press, which you never see anymore. It also would make games "in doubt" for more of the regulation clock, as stall-ball would take 5 fewer seconds off the clock.

Do not make every call have to be either a block or a charge. If the defender clearly has position, charge. If the defender clearly didn't, block. If it's a judgment call, don't blow the whistle (or stop play and award the ball on alternating possession). The rulebook is written to disallow judgment calls to be made, except in this one circumstance.

My never-going-to-happen item: hockey-ish continuation. I'm of the belief that a foul should never be a penalty to the offense, or be a viable strategy for the defense. If an offensive player is fouled, play may continue until the defense acquires the ball. Only award the and-one on fouls during shots. If the offense scores, they only get the 2 or 3 points and no free throws, but they get free throws if they miss (or are forced into a violation). Play stops after a make, so the fouling team loses its chances of a fast break and has to inbound.

Also leads to a faster game, since there are fewer free throws being shot, and the clock won't be stopped so frequently at the end of a close game because of fouls.

Completely insane. I love it!

I really detest - whether ahead or behind - the "foul to catch up" strategy.

Interesting how many of the ideas on here are related to timing of the game.

[Troublemaker]

Shorter shot clock is IMO a must - 30 seconds max. Way too much standing around in college BB while guards pass the ball around the perimeter pointlessly.

The OP's #3 seems like an obvious good tweak as well (and if the shot clock is going to be shortened we may also want to go from 10 seconds to 8).

I'd like to see changes geared toward opening the floor up more, similar to what the NBA has done. I wouldn't mind limitations on zone defense, not wholesale elimination but some guidelines similar to the NBA's.

I'd reduce each team's timeouts from five to four.

It may just be me but I find a LOT of college basketball now completely unwatchable unless I've got a rooting interest - didn't use to feel that way at all. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky but I went through a similar phase with the NBA post-Jordan and that turned around - after they tweaked the rules.

Adding the NBA's Defensive 3-Seconds rule would be huge. If the NBA didn't have Defensive 3-Seconds, NBA defenses would just zone up and pack it in, preventing the entertaining slash-and-kick ball-movement offense that the best teams employ nowadays.

[Wander]

I never understood the complaints over the possession arrow. If both teams possess the ball, it seems to me it should go to the offense half the time and defense half the time. The arrow seems like a reasonable way to handle that. Bilas and Vitale or whatever complain that it "hurts good defense"... but in other sports, those types of situations just automatically go to the offense, and nobody really complains about it.

I don't mind college ball having a different set of rules than the NBA re: shot clock or whatever. The only thing that really hurts the watchability of the game to me is the sheer frequency of timeouts, especially at the end of games. I would: a) make TV timeouts every 5 minutes rather than every 4 (they can each be slightly longer to add in another commercial for revenue or whatever), b) have one less timeout for each team per game, and c) ban the ability to call multiple timeouts in a row with no game time occurring.

[hurleyfor3]

Move the three-point line back in. Go back to the 1990s rules on timeouts -- you get three per game, and if you take one when the teevee timeout is due it counts as the teevee timeout. If you think people call timeout in Situation X too often, reducing the number of timeouts effectively increases the cost of using one.

Keep everything else the same.

[DU82]

Stop the unofficial timeouts. During the 45 seconds a coach gets after somebody fouls out, don't allow the entire team (on the court) to gather with the coach. Also, shorten the 45 seconds to 30.

Enforce the end of timeouts. Once the second whistle blows, put the ball down, or hand it to the inbounding team if the defense isn't where they should be. They'll learn quickly.

Since they don't allow video review of the shot clock until two minutes left, do the same with other clock errors. Why stop the game for a minute to put 4 seconds back on (like what happened Saturday early.) I thought the official scorer recorded when plays happened, the refs can use that to add time back if necessary.

Stick with the 35 second clock, 10 second back court and 5 second closely guarded violations. It's not the NBA, the game doesn't have to be as quick. The 10/5 violations allows the defense to make plays and to be rewarded for it, and forces the offense to do something.

[Bob Green]

3. No more "one and one." On the 8th foul (and beyond) everything is a two-shot foul.

Yuck! I'd go the opposite route and get rid of the double bonus so as to reward players/teams which actually possess the skill to stand unguarded, 15 feet from the basket and make a shot. If a player cannot make the first one, they do not deserve a second chance. While we are at it, let's go back to shooting one foul shot when a player control foul occurs on fouls one through six. Skill needs to be rewarded.

[vick]

I don't mind college ball having a different set of rules than the NBA re: shot clock or whatever. The only thing that really hurts the watchability of the game to me is the sheer frequency of timeouts, especially at the end of games. I would: a) make TV timeouts every 5 minutes rather than every 4 (they can each be slightly longer to add in another commercial for revenue or whatever), b) have one less timeout for each team per game, and c) ban the ability to call multiple timeouts in a row with no game time occurring.

I don't mind it either, but I honestly can't think of a single instance where the NBA rule differs and I think "I really wish they used the college rule," except I do think 30 seconds is probably a more appropriate shot clock at the college level. Then again I'm an advocate of everyone using the FIBA rulebook (except different shot clock lengths and possibly three point lines), so I admit I'm an oddball here.

[oldnavy]

What ruins the game for me more that anything is inconsistent officiating....

I would like to see the officiating go to full time, year round professionals. I honestly believe that most refs are not good enough to call the game as it is now played and there is way too much variability in how games are called.

Have the FT refs spend the summer officiating summer leagues and going to clinics to sharpen their skills.

Here is a thought... how about a coaches challenge? Allow the coach to challenge one call each game, and have the review done in a central location. That could be very interesting.... could try it out in the NIT or in some of the holiday tourneys....

Crazy idea?

[hurleyfor3]

Yuck! I'd go the opposite route and get rid of the double bonus so as to reward players/teams which actually possess the skill to stand unguarded, 15 feet from the basket and make a shot. If a player cannot make the first one, they do not deserve a second chance.

The problem is that at the end of games, the trailing team can score three points at a time, while the team in the lead is generally limited to two at a time. The existing two-shot rule, guaranteeing the leading team two shots, levels this discrepancy somewhat.

I would get rid of the two-shot rule in the first half however.

[bedeviled]

Like DU82, I'm severely irked by big games and tournament games because it seems like every possession gets the equivalent of a timeout as the game is winding down. What's the use in having a limited # of timeouts when all the players go to the bench for a huddle when
1. the trailing team commits a foul....which happens every defensive possession
2. the refs go to the monitor to get the right time on the clock or confirm a call...which happens increasingly frequently in close, important games - games where the extra timeout time is especially beneficial
3. substitutions
4. foul shots
5. floor mopping
and so on.

Please, just let the kids make decisions out on the floor. Or at least, communicate from the bench, not at the bench while refs wait around for the teams to rejoin the game in progress!
So, um, rule changes, I guess would be things like: fewer timeouts given or no huddles after fouls. Or, just give the ball to the offense and let them play whether or not the defensive team has yet broken their non-timeout coach's huddle...like a no-huddle up-tempo football offense.

[Bob Green]

The problem is that at the end of games, the trailing team can score three points at a time, while the team in the lead is generally limited to two at a time. The existing two-shot rule, guaranteeing the leading team two shots, levels this discrepancy somewhat.

I'm not following you. :confused:

[CDu]

Yuck! I'd go the opposite route and get rid of the double bonus so as to reward players/teams which actually possess the skill to stand unguarded, 15 feet from the basket and make a shot. If a player cannot make the first one, they do not deserve a second chance. While we are at it, let's go back to shooting one foul shot when a player control foul occurs on fouls one through six. Skill needs to be rewarded.

I disagree. What you suggest would have the effect of encouraging MORE fouling, especially late in games. There is essentially a minimal penalty to fouling with the one-and-one, because at worst you are limiting the opposition to two points, and there is a very real chance at 0 points. If you do that, trailing teams will start fouling early and the end game will be even more unwatchable. It unfairly penalizes the team that worked hard to get the lead and makes it easier for a trailing team to catch up without actually having to play good defense to do it.

[wilko]

The biggest thing for me is not a rule change, but rather actually enforcing the rules correctly. Call fouls when a player is fouled (this is the single biggest problem with college basketball officiating right now). Get the block/charge call correct (regardless of the specifics on the rules, refs are terrible at getting this right). Don't let the scoring team grab the ball after a made basket. Call travels when a player travels. Call carries when a player carries it.

Could not agree with this part MORE. The notion of "advantage" is squirrelly for me. If there is violation and you see it, call it! You ARE giving an advantage to the other team when you don't make the call.



Aside from the refs actually doing their jobs correctly (and I realize it is a very difficult job), actual rules changes I'd like to see made:

1a. Get rid of the "5-second, closely-guarded" rule.
1b. Get rid of the "10-second" rule.
1c. Shorten the shot clock to 30 seconds (and I only say this as a compromise to allow 1a and 1b to get through).

You lose me somewhat here...
Sounds like it would punish the defense.



I would like to see all three of these rules implemented together. It makes little sense to me to have a 10-second rule and a 5-second closely guarded rule (especially the latter). If you have a shot clock, who cares how you choose to use those 30 (or 35) seconds?

Traps and full court pressure would become de-emphasized if not useless.



2. No fouling out of players, but each foul after a player's 4th (so 5th and beyond) automatically results in two shots and the ball for the other team. This would still require the coaches to decide whether or not to bench a player (or how to set your defense) with a player in foul trouble, but would not have games completely decided by a ref's quick whistles on a key player.

No. In fact I would go the other way so that when a player is disqualified his points don't count for the team total any longer. But no ref would ever have the onions to call it then. It assures no one will ever foul out.
I'd sooner see jumping made illegal.

Part of the strategy is restraint and picking your spots. This is an enjoyable part of the game for me. Adds to the drama.

And I guess it boils down to how you like your games?

Do you enjoy seeing a high scoring action filled affair? That may be fine for the casual fan or bettor.
All I require is that the right team, my team, OUR team win. The beauty is in the end result.
That is entertainment enough for me.

Let me say it a different way--
Take the ND game.... what if both team played lights out and and beautiful, but we lost... How would you feel?
Now take the FSU game - it was an ugly grinder. But we won.
Which one would be preferable to you? Im all about the way to win.



3. No more "one and one." On the 8th foul (and beyond) everything is a two-shot foul.
Maybe. It only matters IF they call them.

-

I think we see the games rather differently....
I'll paint in some generalities for a second..

I would like to see rule changes that do not allow "being physical" to negate a player with actual basketball skill and acumen for the games fundamentals. I would emphasize the "team game" as opposed an individual virtuoso talent. Those would be my desired outcomes for ANY rule changes.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm not following you. :confused:

The trailing team has the ability to jack up threes, and to foul the leading team who gets no more than two free throws.

Thus if everyone makes his shots, the trailing team gains one point per pair of possessions.

Thus endgames work in the favor of the trailing team. No one shoots 100%, but also leading teams will often concede two-point shots to trailing teams.

My point is "perpetual one-and-ones" worked fine before the 3-point line, but nowadays I claim the difference between what a trailing team is capable of doing, and what a leading team is able to do to protect its lead, is too great without a guaranteed two shots.

[Bob Green]

I disagree. What you suggest would have the effect of encouraging MORE fouling, especially late in games. There is essentially a minimal penalty to fouling with the one-and-one, because at worst you are limiting the opposition to two points, and there is a very real chance at 0 points. If you do that, trailing teams will start fouling early and the end game will be even more unwatchable. It unfairly penalizes the team that worked hard to get the lead and makes it easier for a trailing team to catch up without actually having to play good defense to do it.

Well this certainly isn't the way I remember games unfolding during my youth. Games did not turn into foul fests because the players on the court actually possessed the skill to make foul shots. Defenses did not automatically foul, they played defense. Perhaps I am misremembering my youth, but if that is the case I'm sure some old geezer will come along and set me straight.

[Jarhead]

The only way to fix the rules is to use a common set of rules for all basketball. Its only problem is to get the whole world to agree on what the rules should be. It'd take more than 10, or 20, or 50 years to accomplish. Golf rules are totally controlled by the USGA and the R and A in St Andrews. Let them set the example and supervise the show.

[vick]

You lose me somewhat here...
Sounds like it would punish the defense.


Traps and full court pressure would become de-emphasized if not useless.


But so what? This argument, always made in defense of the 5-second rule, has always struck me as bizarrely circular, that somehow "good defense" isn't going to be rewarded. But if it really is good defense to extend and trap, why do you need the crutch of the 5-second rule? Why isn't it enough to just lower the other team's shooting percentage and force turnovers? I'm with CDu--get rid of the crutch, and if teams don't trap, well so be it, trapping wasn't actually good defense after all, it was just artificially subsidized by the rulebook (note that I actually don't think the effect would be that large in reality).

[Bob Green]

My point is "perpetual one-and-ones" worked fine before the 3-point line, but nowadays I claim the difference between what a trailing team is capable of doing, and what a leading team is able to do to protect its lead, is too great without a guaranteed two shots.

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe we should do away with the 3-point shot (to be clear, I'm kidding).

[jv001]

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe we should do away with the 3-point shot (to be clear, I'm kidding).

You and I know Coach K would never want that, :cool: GoDuke!

[bedeviled]

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe we should do away with the 3-point shot (to be clear, I'm kidding).

Wouldn't the following line of thinking suggest that the 3-point rule be revoked?

But so what? This argument, always made in defense of the 5-second rule, has always struck me as bizarrely circular, that somehow "good defense" isn't going to be rewarded. But if it really is good defense to extend and trap, why do you need the crutch of the 5-second rule? Why isn't it enough to just lower the other team's shooting percentage and force turnovers? I'm with CDu--get rid of the crutch, and if teams don't trap, well so be it, trapping wasn't actually good defense after all, it was just artificially subsidized by the rulebook (note that I actually don't think the effect would be that large in reality).
ie
If it is really good offense, why do you need the bonus of an extra point for a long jumpshot? Why isn't it enough just to get the standard 2 points? If teams don't shoot 3-pointers, so be it, long distance shots weren't actually good offense after all, they were just artificially subsidized by the rulebook
Am I missing something in the analogy?

[vick]

Wouldn't the following line of thinking suggest that the 3-point rule be revoked?

ie
If it is really good offense, why do you need the bonus of an extra point for a long jumpshot? Why isn't it enough just to get the standard 2 points? If teams don't shoot 3-pointers, so be it, long distance shots weren't actually good offense after all, they were just artificially subsidized by the rulebook
Am I missing something in the analogy?

If anyone ever made the argument that "good offense" wasn't being rewarded because the three pointer didn't exist, they were dead wrong as well! And long range shots were in fact frequently bad offense before the three pointer.

[CDu]

You lose me somewhat here...
Sounds like it would punish the defense.


Traps and full court pressure would become de-emphasized if not useless.

We can certainly agree to disagree on the rest, but I'll definitely argue against the points above. I don't think that removing the 5-second call and the 10-second call would make full-court pressure or trapping useless at all. You can still set the tempo of the game with trapping and pressure. You can still force turnovers with pressure defense and trapping especially near the endline, near the sideline, or once a player crosses half court.

I just personally think the 5-second call and the 10-second call are silly and unnecessary. It just rewards temporary effort on defense (especially the 5-second call) rather than sustained team defense. And since we have a shot clock, there is no need for the call in terms of pace of play.

[wilko]

But so what? This argument, always made in defense of the 5-second rule, has always struck me as bizarrely circular, that somehow "good defense" isn't going to be rewarded. But if it really is good defense to extend and trap, why do you need the crutch of the 5-second rule? Why isn't it enough to just lower the other team's shooting percentage and force turnovers? I'm with CDu--get rid of the crutch, and if teams don't trap, well so be it, trapping wasn't actually good defense after all, it was just artificially subsidized by the rulebook (note that I actually don't think the effect would be that large in reality).

Like the 5th foul strategy conundrum.... Do you take the time out or not?

If you get the call for 5 or 10 seconds where do you take possession? Under the basket or side out? I believe its a side out currently. Position and spacing is key. If your trap IS successful in the back court you are closer to your goal with theoretically fewer defenders as an impediment to it...

Personally I think the 5 second rule is more of a crutch for the OFFICIAL to not HAVE to make a decision and call a foul. There is no limit on 5 second calls where there are limits on player fouls.

And then again - if its effect is negligible - why do it in the 1st place?

[CDu]

Like the 5th foul strategy conundrum.... Do you take the time out or not?

If you get the call for 5 or 10 seconds where do you take possession? Under the basket or side out? I believe its a side out currently. Position and spacing is key. If your trap IS successful in the back court you are closer to your goal with theoretically fewer defenders as an impediment to it...

Personally I think the 5 second rule is more of a crutch for the OFFICIAL to not HAVE to make a decision and call a foul. There is no limit on 5 second calls where there are limits on player fouls.

And then again - if its effect is negligible - why do it in the 1st place?

The goal of the trap isn't just to get a 5-second call or a 10-second call. It is to force tempo and/or create turnovers. The 5-second call and 10-second call just make it easier for that to happen. And I disagree with the dichotomy of the "5-second call or foul". You can absolutely trap and press successfully without fouling.

[-jk]

I miss flowy ball. I'd like to see fouls enforced consistently enough that players didn't push it every single game.

I'd also like to see the fouled team have a choice between free throws and getting the ball with a fresh shot clock. I think that would really cut end game fouling.

-jk

[jv001]

Peach Baskets! :cool: Just kidding. I just don't want the college game to imitate the pro game. I'm for free flowing offense and not rough house defense. The game is not as beautiful as it once was because of how the games are officiated. Just get it right and stop the rough play. I would like to see less timeouts but with TV, that's not going to happen. GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

I don't mind it either, but I honestly can't think of a single instance where the NBA rule differs and I think "I really wish they used the college rule," except I do think 30 seconds is probably a more appropriate shot clock at the college level. Then again I'm an advocate of everyone using the FIBA rulebook (except different shot clock lengths and possibly three point lines), so I admit I'm an oddball here.

But hasn't FIBA gone all NBA -- with the 24 second clock and the revised shape of the lane?

[wilko]

The goal of the trap isn't just to get a 5-second call or a 10-second call. It is to force tempo and/or create turnovers. The 5-second call and 10-second call just make it easier for that to happen.

Right, so if you make it harder for the defense isn't that at its core a type of defensive penalty?



And I disagree with the dichotomy of the "5-second call or foul". You can absolutely trap and press successfully without fouling.

Quite right they are mutually exclusive. One does not necessarily dictate the other.
My guess is however you'd see more fouls called as a result.
Purely speculation on my part. Instead of delaying progress to get the call, they are going to separate the player from the ball and that says foul to me...

[wilko]

I just don't want the college game to imitate the pro game.
I'm for free flowing offense and not rough house defense. The game is not as beautiful as it once was because of how the games are officiated. Just get it right and stop the rough play.

THIS 1000 times this...

[vick]

But hasn't FIBA gone all NBA -- with the 24 second clock and the revised shape of the lane?

Mostly. There's still some remaining differences, like the shorter three point line (I'm ambivalent about this), the looser goaltending rule (I thoroughly favor FIBA's rule), and the lack of live ball timeouts (ditto), but yes, there has been substantial convergence.

[elvis14]

I like the 30 second clock because it rewards good defense. Same with the 10 second and 5 second rules plus as someone else mentioned it makes the offense do something. On block/charge I'd say just be clear and give consistent guidance. Oh and a flop is a no-call or a block if the floundering defender gains an advantage (I love it when guys flop in NBA games and the refs tell them to get up).

I know last year was tough with all the touch fouls called but I do like what they were trying to do: improve the flow of the game. Right now what I'm seeing is that touch fouls are being called on the perimeter but in the paint very physical play is allowed. I'd like to see the physical play in the paint get cleaned up. Make guys play defense by moving their feet and getting into position and holding their position not by hammering on guys, grabbing and bumping guys using picks, etc). This doesn't require a rule change but more of a change it the way the game is called. This should improve the flow of the game in the paint and make it easier for guys to score down low.

[CDu]

Right, so if you make it harder for the defense isn't that at its core a type of defensive penalty?



Quite right they are mutually exclusive. One does not necessarily dictate the other.
My guess is however you'd see more fouls called as a result.

I view it as stopping the unnecessarily inflated reward for very specific, and temporary, defensive efforts.

As for the argument that more fouls would be called, if you have to foul to have an effective trap/press, then I would argue that you aren't playing good defense, and thus shouldn't be rewarded.

[mkirsh]

Great Thread.

I'd vote for:

- 30 second shot clock to both increase # of possessions and over incent good defense. Or how about this - keep the shot clock at 35, but start it when the offense touches the ball out of bounds, and remove the 5 second in-bound rule.

- Block/Charge where the defender needs to be set before the offensive player leaves the floor (not the hard to understand "upward motion") to get a charge called, and get rid of the restricted area

- Keep alternating possession for jump ball, but call way fewer of them. There are a lot of jump ball calls that don't need to happen and play could just continue (ie when a defensive player happens to put two hands on the ball for 0.5 seconds), or that should be called fouls (ie when a player dives on top of another who has the ball in a loose ball situation - most of those are fouls) or other (ie when the offensive player goes up, defender hits the ball but the ball doesn't hit the floor and offensive player lands, call a travel not a jump ball).

- Give offense option of taking the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws in the last 2 minutes

Also, I love the hockey penalty continuation idea, but probably too much of a departure from tradition

[wilko]

As for the argument that more fouls would be called, if you have to foul to have an effective trap/press, then I would argue that you aren't playing good defense, and thus shouldn't be rewarded.

I think there are fouls being committed NOW that aren't called in that situation as it is... much less the post where its just awful.... I dont expect it that rule change to clean it up.


Good thing neither of us are tasked with making changes.. :-)

[jimsumner]

Sorry Bob, but shooting one free throw on common fouls before the bonus is a terrible idea. Assume for the sake of argument that a possession is worth one point. Assume for the sake of argument that college players make 70 percent of their foul shots. That means shooting one foul shot reduces the value of a possession to 0.7 points per possession. It doesn't reward offensive skill, it penalizes it.

Which is why the rule was changed.

The Big East (and a few minor conferences) experimented with six fouls back in the early 1990s. Made the game even more physical. Didn't last.

There are some international rules that might make sense. Don't allow players to call timeout? Allow players to inbound the ball in certain situations without a referee touching it? Option of taking the ball out of bounds after a foul?

These are all things that have been tried, so there is a data base to examine.

Changing the 10-second line to an 8-second line seems to have worked in the NBA.

[Bob Green]

Sorry Bob, but shooting one free throw on common fouls before the bonus is a terrible idea. Assume for the sake of argument that a possession is worth one point. Assume for the sake of argument that college players make 70 percent of their foul shots. That means shooting one foul shot reduces the value of a possession to 0.7 points per possession. It doesn't reward offensive skill, it penalizes it.

Which is why the rule was changed.



Thanks! What are your thoughts on the double bonus?

[kmspeaks]

I don't know why this bothers me so much or how much it would actually change the game but here's one I haven't seen so far. Why after a team has brought the ball across half-court and then has to take it out of bounds (non-shooting foul before the bonus, kicked ball, tipped out of bounds, etc) are you allowed to throw the ball into the backcourt? It just makes absolutely no sense to me.

Other than that I agree with everyone who said what college basketball needs is not so much rule changes, but actual enforcement of the rules that do exist. Stop letting guys bump and grab cutters or letting post players beat the crap out of each other in the name of "establishing position".

[LastRowFan]

I miss flowy ball. I'd like to see fouls enforced consistently enough that players didn't push it every single game.

I'd also like to see the fouled team have a choice between free throws and getting the ball with a fresh shot clock. I think that would really cut end game fouling.

-jk

I agree with this! To take it one step further, you could implement the ultimate frisbee rule where all players return to their positions at the time of the foul when restarting play. It is bad enough that fouls result in stoppage of play and a potential change of possession on a missed free throw. But let us also take away the ability to reset the defense on a foul.

[southgater]

Too many fouls at the end of close games. I suggest that starting with the 12th foul of the half that the fouled team gets 3 foul shots. Alternatively, stick with 2 foul shots but give the team the option of taking the ball out of bounds with a fresh shot clock rather than taking the 2 foul shots. Doing one of these only after the 12th foul would still provide some chance for a trailing team to do some fouling to catch up but would limit this. This would also benefit teams that don't foul as much during the earlier parts of the game, thus speeding and cleaning up the overall game.

Get rid of the kicked ball rule. Why not let people use their feet as they do the rest of their bodies on defense. Reward someone with quick feet, just as they are rewarded for quick hands. Or if that goes too far, allow feet for intercepting passes but not for interfering with dribbling - as I wouldn't want defenders constantly kicking their feet at dribblers.

Penalize jump shooters that kick out their leg while shooting in hopes of having the defender run into it and be called for a foul. Either make this a no-call or even better call an offensive foul.

I agree with earlier posters on not resetting the 10 second clock after a time-out.

For TV games, reduce the time out allotment for each team to 3 or 4 since there are so many TV time outs. I think they used to do something like this, but that may have been before there were so many televised games.

Don't be so quick to call fouls on defenders when offensive drivers jump into them and initiate the contact. Too many times I see someone drive and jump into a defender and get the call. I'm pretty sure this happened to Jah in the FSU game with one of their wing players. He was moving parallel to the FSU player who then veered into him, bounced off and launched a shot to get an and one. This should either be a no-call or an offensive foul. I would guess that this rule is already in the books, but just needs to be better enforced.

[jimsumner]

Thanks! What are your thoughts on the double bonus?


It seems to me that we're talking about two different things.

The first is how to open up the game, give it more flow, reward offense, produce more points. Eliminate the 43-35 games.

The second is how to speed up the interminable end game, with repeated fouling and timeouts.

I think shortening the shot clock to 30 and the half-court count to eight are a start to the first question. But I agree with others that allowing less physical contact is crucial. There's lot of talk about Virginia's pack-line defense. But I don't think it's a theoretical breakthrough as much as it is a total commitment to be as physical as possible under the assumption that the officials aren't going to call any but a fraction of the contact that ensues.

Easier said then done. John Thompson got away with it for most of his career.

End of game? I think giving fouled teams the option of taking the shots or the ball needs to be looked at. Maybe only in the final four minutes or so.

[uh_no]

Alternatively, stick with 2 foul shots but give the team the option of taking the ball out of bounds with a fresh shot clock rather than taking the 2 foul shots.

I've seen this suggested several times....but why would ANY team take this?

The other team will just foul you again, running hardly any time off the clock, and all you've done is add a huge risk of a turnover without scoring any points. Coaches would take the points from the line almost every time.

[southgater]

I've seen this suggested several times....but why would ANY team take this?

The other team will just foul you again, running hardly any time off the clock, and all you've done is add a huge risk of a turnover without scoring any points. Coaches would take the points from the line almost every time.

Suppose they foul your 50% shooter - wouldn't you take the ball out of bounds?

[uh_no]

Suppose they foul your 50% shooter - wouldn't you take the ball out of bounds?

and they'll foul someone else without any time off the clock.

If we're going with contrived schemes, i'd prefer to allow the team the choice of who gets the shoot the free throws....which would be the eventuality of the "take it out of bounds" scheme....as you'll just keep taking it out of bounds, and the other team will keep fouling you either until you turn it over, or until a high % shooter gets fouled.

[gep]

I agree with a lot of the suggestions... 30 second shot clock, 8 seconds to bring the ball up half-court... etc. But, what about just getting rid of "official video review". Used to be the game only had 2 refs... now there are 3. Just let them call the game as they see it... and go on with life. At least in college, no livelihood is being jeopardized... just "prestige". And, I really hate the 1 minute (45 seconds?) "timeout" when a player fouls out. Just substitute as a normal substitution... delay of game, otherwise.

[nocilla]

I have wondered before, what is the purpose of the 10 second rule to begin with? Why is it a penalty if you don't cross half court in 10 seconds? I understand the 5 seconds to inbounds because that is essentially a delay of game. But when you have a shot clock then why does it matter if you cross half court in a set time?

[uh_no]

I have wondered before, what is the purpose of the 10 second rule to begin with? Why is it a penalty if you don't cross half court in 10 seconds? I understand the 5 seconds to inbounds because that is essentially a delay of game. But when you have a shot clock then why does it matter if you cross half court in a set time?

a lot easier to play stall ball when you have the whole court to work with. also rewards good defense.