PDA

View Full Version : Rule changes: 30-second shotclock, fewer timeouts



vick
05-15-2015, 02:26 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

94duke
05-15-2015, 02:38 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 02:39 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

I agree. That's the one that stuck out for me, too.

mattman91
05-15-2015, 02:40 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

My thoughts exactly!

Ichabod Drain
05-15-2015, 02:43 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?


I agree. That's the one that stuck out for me, too.

I'm pretty sure they don't have this rule in the NBA. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure why the NCAA is eliminating it other than trying to mimic the NBA more. Though this is one that I think the NBA should take after the NCAA on.

NancyCarol
05-15-2015, 02:52 PM
After several engagements which I called off, I no longer get excited about "proposals". Since I cannot affect the decisions, i'll wait to be annoyed, irritated, incredulous, or delighted when they are actual rules. Having said that, I do enjoy learning from all of you as you discuss the pros and cons.

vick
05-15-2015, 03:01 PM
I agree. That's the one that stuck out for me, too.

I'm not adamant about eliminating it, but to me the big disadvantage of having the rule is it is extremely difficult to enforce accurately and hence becomes fairly arbitrary. Few and simple rules are preferable to many and complex rules wherever possible.

dball
05-15-2015, 03:06 PM
I'm pretty sure they don't have this rule in the NBA. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure why the NCAA is eliminating it other than trying to mimic the NBA more. Though this is one that I think the NBA should take after the NCAA on.

The NBA does have a 5 second rule but it's a bit different: an offensive player in his front court below the free throw line extended may not dribble the ball with his back or side to the basket more than 5 seconds.

Outside that area, Kobe, Lebron or whoever could stare down a defender before making a move. I think with the 24 second clock and 8 seconds to bring it over the line, a 5 second rule doesn't come into play too often in the NBA, but I agree I would think it's still a good idea in the NCAA.

1 24 90
05-15-2015, 03:06 PM
A little off topic but can anyone explain why there is a 10 second rule to get the ball into the front court? Why do we care if it takes a team longer than 10 seconds to get the ball past half court? Is it just a rule to help reward good defense? I just don't understand why it is a rule.

Jarhead
05-15-2015, 03:10 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

To make it harder to execute on ball defense while making it easier for the offense to run time off the clock. Why? Who knows?

BigWayne
05-15-2015, 03:13 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

With a 30 second clock, it is not needed to prevent slow play, which was the original genesis of this rule in the pre-shot clock era.

That being said, the main benefit of eliminating it at this point is that it removes the tracking of the time from the referee's task list. Presumably, this frees their attention up to focus on contact related infractions.

Bob Green
05-15-2015, 03:24 PM
* 30 second shot clock



Will this new rule increase or decrease scoring? I vote for decrease.

kexman
05-15-2015, 03:32 PM
I generally do not watch the NBA, but have watched a few playoff games this year. The main thing I notice about their 24 sec clock is that they get into their offense much more quickly than the college games. They seldom are walking the ball up the court. Outside of a fast break or secondary break it seems the college game is pretty slow to start the offensive possession. A little urgency in getting the ball up the court will probably take care of the decrease from 35 to 30 seconds.

duncnoah
05-15-2015, 03:59 PM
my humble opinion is thus: the college game will become more and more like the pro game. That is a bad thing. In 20 years, the shot clock will be 15 seconds, the offense will have every advantage, charges will not exist, defense will not be rewarded (5 sec violation etc), jump balls will all go to the offense, each trip down the floor will be a mad dash to the rim or a fast 3. It will be sloppy and painful to watch. We will be getting crushed on the international level because we have turned away from skills like defense, shot selection, screening, and mid range shooting.

DukeDevil
05-15-2015, 04:05 PM
Why would they want to get rid of the 5-second rule?

Given the reasons listed above, I guess I can understand trying to reduce the things the ref has to keep track of by eliminating the 5 second rule. That being said, few things get me so pumped as a successful 5 second call. I suspect getting this call is up there with taking a charge on the "two thumbs up and a pat on the back from coach K" list.

94duke
05-15-2015, 04:06 PM
With a 30 second clock, it is not needed to prevent slow play, which was the original genesis of this rule in the pre-shot clock era.

That being said, the main benefit of eliminating it at this point is that it removes the tracking of the time from the referee's task list. Presumably, this frees their attention up to focus on contact related infractions.

I have thought of the 5-second call as a reward for good defense for so long, that I forgot about this.
Thanks.

dball
05-15-2015, 04:17 PM
my humble opinion is thus: the college game will become more and more like the pro game. That is a bad thing. In 20 years, the shot clock will be 15 seconds, the offense will have every advantage, charges will not exist, defense will not be rewarded (5 sec violation etc), jump balls will all go to the offense, each trip down the floor will be a mad dash to the rim or a fast 3. It will be sloppy and painful to watch. We will be getting crushed on the international level because we have turned away from skills like defense, shot selection, screening, and mid range shooting.

I know you're exaggerating to make your point but the NBA 24 second clock has been around for sixty years.

If anything it appears the college game is moving more toward the international (30 second clock, extended 3 pt line). Actually, the 30 second clock may help defenses. It'll be interesting to see if scoring improves.

DukeDevil
05-15-2015, 04:17 PM
Also...I know this is 100% paranoia, but cutting back timeout and replacing the near media timeout with a team timeout if it's called around the same time (or whatever they're describing) seems to take a hit at Duke. K managed fatigue throughout the latter half of the season this way routinely...

duncnoah
05-15-2015, 04:23 PM
I know you're exaggerating to make your point but the NBA 24 second clock has been around for sixty years.

If anything it appears the college game is moving more toward the international (30 second clock, extended 3 pt line). Actually, the 30 second clock may help defenses. It'll be interesting to see if scoring improves.

I agree that shortning the shot clock will on paper look to be helping defense. It is easier to play good d for 30 seconds instead of 35 but the main result of a quicker shot clock will be poorer shot selection and more misses which will keep scoring down. the result is a weaker product imo

vick
05-15-2015, 04:25 PM
I know you're exaggerating to make your point but the NBA 24 second clock has been around for sixty years.

If anything it appears the college game is moving more toward the international (30 second clock, extended 3 pt line). Actually, the 30 second clock may help defenses. It'll be interesting to see if scoring improves.

FIBA now uses 24-second clocks. In general I think FIBA rules are superior and the NCAA should just adopt them wholesale, but I'm fine with 30 instead of 24 for non-professional basketball.

I'm not sure what's so bad about college basketball becoming more like the more-skilled-than-ever (certainly on defense) NBA anyway.

P.S. Not shooting as many mid-range jumpers, which are generally very low expected value shots, is as much a fundamental as good free throw shooting form.

OldPhiKap
05-15-2015, 04:37 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

Really disagree with the bolded. Not crazy about going to 30 seconds, in that you just have more bad possessions per game. But otherwise I think those are all positive steps.

Tripping William
05-15-2015, 04:40 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

Fewer time-outs for Roy to not use. Not sure how that cuts strategically, other than Roy gets fewer hamburgers for redeeming them, I suppose.

dball
05-15-2015, 04:45 PM
FIBA now uses 24-second clocks. In general I think FIBA rules are superior and the NCAA should just adopt them wholesale, but I'm fine with 30 instead of 24 for non-professional basketball.

I'm not sure what's so bad about college basketball becoming more like the more-skilled-than-ever (certainly on defense) NBA anyway.

P.S. Not shooting as many mid-range jumpers, which are generally very low expected value shots, is as much a fundamental as good free throw shooting form.

Yes, I should have stated moving more toward international as opposed to NBA standards. Having the same rules for all would make things a lot simpler. Canadian colleges use the 24 second clock (perhaps all FIBA rules--not sure).

It's a bit like we have different dimensions and rules for early players in baseball (Little League) and maybe fewer innings at other lower levels, but college ball is the same as pro ball (in terms of dimensions and rules for the most part).

dball
05-15-2015, 04:47 PM
Fewer time-outs for Roy to not use. Not sure how that cuts strategically, other than Roy gets fewer hamburgers for redeeming them, I suppose.

So is Roy responsible for this one in the way that Dean was for the shot clock?

Wahoo2000
05-15-2015, 06:03 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

Returning to the "freedom of movement" initiatives of the 13-14 season will help scoring 1,000,000x more than any changes to the shot clock. The NCAA totally "wussed out" after all the complaints about excessive foul calls and free throws in 13-14 and removed that emphasis for this past season. Sure, it'll take a little while for players to adjust, but they WILL adjust. Allow offensive players freedom of movement, and allow defensive players the right to verticality. Eliminate hand-checking, "bodying" of offensive players on drives to the basket, and don't call fouls when an offensive player throws himself into a defender. It'll bring us as close as we're going to get the "golden age" of CBB in the 80s and early 90s.

-jk
05-15-2015, 06:30 PM
Returning to the "freedom of movement" initiatives of the 13-14 season will help scoring 1,000,000x more than any changes to the shot clock. The NCAA totally "wussed out" after all the complaints about excessive foul calls and free throws in 13-14 and removed that emphasis for this past season. Sure, it'll take a little while for players to adjust, but they WILL adjust. Allow offensive players freedom of movement, and allow defensive players the right to verticality. Eliminate hand-checking, "bodying" of offensive players on drives to the basket, and don't call fouls when an offensive player throws himself into a defender. It'll bring us as close as we're going to get the "golden age" of CBB in the 80s and early 90s.

"Flowy hoops." Oh!, how I miss it. (Danged refs! Danged Barakat!)

-jk

wolfpack
05-15-2015, 06:41 PM
I believe getting rid of the 5 second rule has everything to do with freedom of movement. I struggle to recall any 5 second call that was not obtained by the defender hand checking and bumping the ball handler. I think the NCAA should just adopt all FIBA rules. I love their rule where anything on the rim is a live ball.

BigWayne
05-15-2015, 06:57 PM
List in the first post left out a few items. NCAA article is here. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-rules-committee-recommends-package-proposals-improve-game)

Couple key ones not mentioned above are:


Removing the ability for a coach to call timeout when the ball is live.
Allowing only a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball to the front court (with a few exceptions).
Reducing the amount of time available to replace a disqualified player.


I wonder exactly how the bold one will get implemented. Specifically, I am wondering if this applies to a coach calling timeout after a made basket during the time the other team is supposed to be inbounding the ball. I realize it is probably mostly to apply to the random situations where a coach tries to call timeout before a player loses the ball, but these timeouts after made baskets have always pissed me off.

Also, the 5 second rule reference is only for dribbling:


Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule while dribbling the ball.

Duvall
05-15-2015, 07:01 PM
Returning to the "freedom of movement" initiatives of the 13-14 season will help scoring 1,000,000x more than any changes to the shot clock. The NCAA totally "wussed out" after all the complaints about excessive foul calls and free throws in 13-14 and removed that emphasis for this past season. Sure, it'll take a little while for players to adjust, but they WILL adjust. Allow offensive players freedom of movement, and allow defensive players the right to verticality. Eliminate hand-checking, "bodying" of offensive players on drives to the basket, and don't call fouls when an offensive player throws himself into a defender. It'll bring us as close as we're going to get the "golden age" of CBB in the 80s and early 90s.

I am surprised to see a Virginia fan suggest this.

SCMatt33
05-15-2015, 07:26 PM
List in the first post left out a few items. NCAA article is here. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-rules-committee-recommends-package-proposals-improve-game)

Couple key ones not mentioned above are:


Removing the ability for a coach to call timeout when the ball is live.
Allowing only a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball to the front court (with a few exceptions).
Reducing the amount of time available to replace a disqualified player.



Another thing listed at the bottom of the article is that there could be the potential for the NIT to experiment with a 6th foul per player next year. Overall, I think they're mostly good, though I'd like to see first how many are truly adopted. Does anyone know from the past whether adoption of these rules from this point on is normally a formality, or is there a good chance that many of them will vanish next month? I also like the general idea that several of them take away duties from the refs during game action. They don't have to do a five-count during dribbles, they don't have to pay attention to the coach for a possible timeout during a play, etc. That should hopefully lead to better officiating.

Acymetric
05-15-2015, 07:31 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.





Removing the ability for a coach to call timeout when the ball is live.
Allowing only a total of 10 seconds to advance the ball to the front court (with a few exceptions).
Reducing the amount of time available to replace a disqualified player.




I think all of these sound great except:

1) Dunking in warmups: (not opposed, just a who cares)

2) Eliminating the five second rule: I love the five second rule, and it is hardly ever called so I don't see getting rid of it changing the game that much anyway. As someone else mentioned, it is way exciting when you do get one, and is generally a sign of a suffocating man to man defense (disagree that hand checking is required or necessarily common with 5 second rule calls and with the contact emphasis concern over rewarding physical defense should go away with or without the five second rule).

3) Replay for shot clock violations: I want new rules that reduce video review, not expand it. Last two minutes of the game, maybe although I know some people don't like the arbitrary changing of rules at end of games.

I love any of the rules involving fewer timeouts, especially turning a team timeout into a media if it is close to a media timeout. It isn't so bad on tv but it is absolutely brutal when you're watching in person and a coach calls a timeout at 12:04. Might as well get up and stretch your legs, because 6-8 of the next minutes will be teams huddled on the sidelines.

Am I misunderstanding the second change in Wayne's post? Sounds like the rule we already have.

Not totally sure about the rule about coaches not calling timeouts...I think maybe there is some middle ground where the team must have clear control of the ball for a timeout to be called but of course it gets harder to clearly define when you get into that gray area.

BigWayne
05-15-2015, 07:49 PM
Am I misunderstanding the second change in Wayne's post? Sounds like the rule we already have.



Right now, if there is a stoppage while the ball is in the backcourt, the ten second count starts anew when the ball is inbounded.

I wonder what the effect of this rule will be on inbounding in the frontcourt. Will it effectively eliminate the safety valve of inbounding to the backcourt? Might be some sort of exception written in. If not, it could make inbounding lead to more turnovers.

Note that this rule will also reduce the "counting" effort of the referees as now the shot clock becomes the ten second clock also.

luburch
05-15-2015, 08:19 PM
Like others have stated, I imagine getting rid of the 5 second rule allows the ref to focus more on fouls, contact, etc.

I'm thrilled that they're addressing the issue with timeouts. There are far too many to begin with. Add to that the fact that the coach could call a timeout at 8:02 and then there could be a media timeout at 7:58 was ridiculous and killed the flow of the game. I've had the pleasure of going to 60+ college games over the last 4 years and this was definitely the largest complaint I heard from other fans.

Enforcing the rules as stated (cleaning up the game) will help scoring far more than reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds will.

JNort
05-15-2015, 08:53 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

Really would have preferred the shot clock going down to 28 seconds but o well. Love the elimination of 1 timeout, 2 would have been better. Need to extend the 3pt line not the charge line.

CDu
05-15-2015, 09:24 PM
I am on board with all of these changes. I would note, though, that the single biggest fix would be to actually call fouls when they happen. It would take maybe a season for teams to adjust. Maybe that long. But if you are adamant about enforcing the rules, believe me teams will adjust. The NCAA just bailed too quickly last time when there were a few weeks of really drawn-out foul fests. They need to stick to their guns this time.

jv001
05-15-2015, 10:45 PM
Along with rule changes to help the offensive player, I'd like to see the refs call "palming the ball". It's hard enough to guard a point guard one on one when they don't carry or palm the ball. GoDuke!

Newton_14
05-15-2015, 11:22 PM
Will this new rule increase or decrease scoring? I vote for decrease.
I would agree. While I don't think the 5 second reduction will have a huge impact, if it does impact scoring it will be on the low side not the high side. The thing about the NBA, for the good teams anyway, is they don't panic when the clock gets down below 10 seconds. They calmly work for their shot even when it gets below 5 seconds. I am still not a fan of the 24 second clock as it promotes one on one play over team play, so I am holding out slim hopes the college game never goes there.

For the College game, 30 seconds should still be enough time to run your offense or set play and get a good shot up. I don't care what anybody says, the key to winning basketball at any level is good/great shot selection. Bad shot selection is also the first sign of poor coaching in my opinion.

neemizzle
05-16-2015, 12:10 AM
Now THIS is a rule change that I'd like to see in men's college hoops.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2015-05-15/rules-committee-recommends-moving-womens-games-four-quarter

What say you?

GGLC
05-16-2015, 01:11 AM
Now THIS is a rule change that I'd like to see in men's college hoops.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2015-05-15/rules-committee-recommends-moving-womens-games-four-quarter

What say you?

No, I'd hate it. It would just seem wrong. What's the benefit?

neemizzle
05-16-2015, 01:36 AM
No, I'd hate it. It would just seem wrong. What's the benefit?

The benefit would be giving a real chance for the college kids to get acquainted with at least some of NBA rules but keeping a college feel by the 2 halves still being 20 minutes.

It wouldn't be terrible. A major change, yes, but not terrible.

Reilly
05-16-2015, 03:01 AM
A little off topic but can anyone explain why there is a 10 second rule to get the ball into the front court? Why do we care if it takes a team longer than 10 seconds to get the ball past half court? Is it just a rule to help reward good defense? I just don't understand why it is a rule.


...

[I][LIST]
Removing the ability for a coach to call timeout when the ball is live....

I'm guessing the 10-second rule was adopted to force play, the same way the shot clock was. Per wikipedia it was adopted in 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_basketball Really crazy Dean got away with the four corners for so long before implementing the shot clock. Now that we have a shot clock, agreed there's less need for the 10-second rule, so maybe it is kept primarily to reward defense?

I love the FIBA rule of only allowing dead-ball timeouts. The end of games in the World Cup and the Olympics "flow" so much better and more quickly.

SCMatt33
05-16-2015, 12:27 PM
No, I'd hate it. It would just seem wrong. What's the benefit?

More pace of play. The women's game will now have 6 media time outs (5 minute mark of each quarter plus 1 between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th quarters) as opposed to 8 (16, 12, 8, and 4 minute mark of each half). The women are also getting rid of a called timeout. With all of these things designed to shorten the game and eliminate time outs, you have to wonder what TV networks will think of this and weather they try to adjust TV contracts based on fewer in-game commercial opportunities.

The other huge women's rule is that they are adopting the NBA style free advancement of the ball on a called timeout in the final minute.

CDu
05-16-2015, 12:43 PM
A little off topic but can anyone explain why there is a 10 second rule to get the ball into the front court? Why do we care if it takes a team longer than 10 seconds to get the ball past half court? Is it just a rule to help reward good defense? I just don't understand why it is a rule.

Like the 5-second closely-guarded rule, it is an artifact of a time when there was no shot clock. The rule was there to force teams, in the era of no shot clock, to get going on offense. Once the shot clock was created, the necessity of this rule basically disappeared (if I am not mistaken, the 10-second rule doesn't exist in the womens' game).

I am also in favor of fewer, less-complicated rules enforced better. I hate the charge circle, for example, because it has introduced a more complicated interpretation of an already difficult-to-call rule.

It would support removal of the 5-second closely guarded rule, the 10-second backcourt rule, and the timeout during live play. But these are all minor points that will ultimately have little impact other than to simplify the rules. The big benefit will be in actually calling the fouls that are happening on every possession to allow for a more free-flowing game rather than a holdfest.

rsvman
05-16-2015, 02:29 PM
Proposed rule changes (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness) form the rules committee today include:

* 30 second shot clock
* Cutting timeouts from 5 to 4 per team
* Replacing a media timeout with the team timeout if called close to the media timeout window
* Enforcing rules against contact and giving defenders "verticality" protection
* Forcing teams to return more quickly from timeouts
* Expanding the no-charge arc
* Eliminating the ban on dunking in warmups
* Penalizing diving (on replay review of flagrant fouls)
* Reducing the penalty for minor technicals
* Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule
* Allowing replays to see if the shot clock was violated

IMO, a great set of changes if adopted.

I think the majority of these are bad ideas. I'm competely opposed to the 30-second shot clock. It won't do what they think it will do. I don't think scoring will go up at all as a result of this, if the change is implemented.
It penalizes smart coaching to not allow a coach's time-out close to a media time-out. As others have mentioned, this is the way smart coaches manage fatigue.
Penalizing diving makes no sense to me.
A technical is a technical. I don't think there should be "minor technicals." I don't think it's a good idea to give players/coaches more flexibility when it comes to technical fouls.
The five-second closely guarded rule is a good rule, IMO, and eliminating it will just put more focus on offense. There is already too much focus on offense.

I'm OK with expanding the no charge arc. I don't care if guys dunk during warm-ups. I think teams should return more quickly from time-outs, but we'd need more information here. How is "more quickly" defined? What is the penalty for not returning in a timely fashion?

Overall, I think we'd be much better off by not implementing any of these rules changes than by implementing them all. If I had to choose to implement just one, I would remove the penalty for dunking in warm-ups. If forced to choose two, I'd add the no-charge arc change.

But just leave well enough alone, already. And I agree with an earlier poster who said that it would be better to not make college ball look exactly like pro ball.

Acymetric
05-16-2015, 03:02 PM
I actually really like the lower tier technical foul change. I think we're a little too touchy on techs anyway, of course there is a line but I think players could be allowed a little more flexibility to express themselves.

SCMatt33
05-16-2015, 06:47 PM
One other thing that the 4 quarter system will change in the women's game is the official elimination of the 1-and-1. Fouls will be like the NBA with 2 shots starting on the 5th foul of a quarter.

Troublemaker
05-16-2015, 08:08 PM
List in the first post left out a few items. NCAA article is here. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-rules-committee-recommends-package-proposals-improve-game)

Thanks for the link. That NCAA press release better explains what the rules committee is trying to do than sports media like ESPN, which has focused too much on the shotclock change.

Excerpt from the press release:


“Although the reduction in the shot clock to help increase scoring seemed to be the most discussed topic, the increase in the physicality of play has been a major concern for coaches. The NCAA rules committee has addressed that this week with an emphasis on perimeter defense and post play,” said Ron Hunter, president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches and men’s basketball coach at Georgia State University.

The committee, which met May 12-15 in Indianapolis, agreed reducing the physicality is the most critical need to encourage a more open style of play and improve the game.

The key areas the committee will focus on in the upcoming season are:


Perimeter defense, particularly on the dribbler and strictly enforcing the directives put in the book before the 2013-14 season.
Physicality in post play.
Screening, particularly moving screens and requiring that the screener be stationary.
Block/charge plays.
Allowing greater freedom of movement for players without the ball.



If the true focus is on decreasing physicality, especially in the post -- which has become wrestling in recent years -- then I'm enthused about these changes. We'll see if enforcement can match the stated goals, but the goals are good.

Ima Facultiwyfe
05-16-2015, 08:20 PM
I'm surprised they didn't address the grinding out at the end of close games with fouls. Everybody in the arena KNOWS they are intentional. The team fouled should at least have the option of taking the ball out of bounds rather than going to the line.

Don't bother changing a bunch of rules. Just enforce the ones on the books already.......like hanging on the rim......like big guys backing into and banging into defenders.......like palming the ball........like diving on TOP of a player on the floor and getting a tie ball......like coaches out of their boxes and ON THE FLOOR.

And as far as giving the refs less to worry about with five second calls? There are three dudes out there already. Surely one of them can count to five.

I'd like to see a fourth ref stationed high over the court making calls those of us in the stands can already see. Just my 2 cents.


Love, Ima

swood1000
05-16-2015, 08:34 PM
Penalizing diving makes no sense to me.
I think that by "diving" the original article was referring to this from the NCAA article (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-rules-committee-recommends-package-proposals-improve-game):


Faking Fouls
The committee discussed the growing issue of players attempting to draw fouls by deceiving officials. The committee proposed a rule that would allow officials to penalize faking fouls during the use of video to review a possible flagrant foul.

Jarhead
05-16-2015, 10:40 PM
Like the 5-second closely-guarded rule, it is an artifact of a time when there was no shot clock. The rule was there to force teams, in the era of no shot clock, to get going on offense. Once the shot clock was created, the necessity of this rule basically disappeared (if I am not mistaken, the 10-second rule doesn't exist in the womens' game).

I am also in favor of fewer, less-complicated rules enforced better. I hate the charge circle, for example, because it has introduced a more complicated interpretation of an already difficult-to-call rule.

It would support removal of the 5-second closely guarded rule, the 10-second backcourt rule, and the timeout during live play. But these are all minor points that will ultimately have little impact other than to simplify the rules. The big benefit will be in actually calling the fouls that are happening on every possession to allow for a more free-flowing game rather than a holdfest.

Lets start with the 5 second rule -- that came about in response to stall ball. It rewards good defensive play while suppressing delay tactics. Good rule.

Now for the 10 second rule -- that goes back a long time. It discourages delay tactics in the back court, but it also creates a defensive opportunity to keeps the offense from bringing the ball into the forecourt. Good idea. Without the center line and 10 second rule it becomes chase ball, much worse than stall ball. Just imagine Dean Smith with that. Good thing there is at least a 30 second shot clock. Without the 10 second rule we'd need a 10 second shot clock. The score keeper goes wild.

Now for the charge circle -- if anything it needs to be larger. It provides visible help to the game officials when making charge calls. Inside that arc, it's blocking. Outside the arc it can be charging, but it's up to the officials to get it right. Better training may help, and so would better wording of the rules. I've noticed lately that the NBA officials get it right most of the time these days. Don't worry, be happy.

MarkD83
05-17-2015, 06:51 AM
Now for the charge circle -- if anything it needs to be larger. It provides visible help to the game officials when making charge calls. Inside that arc, it's blocking. Outside the arc it can be charging, but it's up to the officials to get it right. Better training may help, and so would better wording of the rules. I've noticed lately that the NBA officials get it right most of the time these days. Don't worry, be happy.

I may be a voice in the wilderness but if a defensive player has position anywhere on the court and gets run over its a charge. Now I understand the circle rule is to allow the offensive player an advantage near the hoop and a way to protect them when they are in the air. However wouldn't a better way to do this is to not allow help defense in the 3 second lane. The defensive fan in me would cringe but if the point is to have more scoring then if you get beat outside just let the offensive player have a layup. I know I am being ridiculous but to me this sounds like the point of the ever expanding no charge circle.

duncnoah
05-17-2015, 08:00 AM
I may be a voice in the wilderness but if a defensive player has position anywhere on the court and gets run over its a charge. Now I understand the circle rule is to allow the offensive player an advantage near the hoop and a way to protect them when they are in the air. However wouldn't a better way to do this is to not allow help defense in the 3 second lane. The defensive fan in me would cringe but if the point is to have more scoring then if you get beat outside just let the offensive player have a layup. I know I am being ridiculous but to me this sounds like the point of the ever expanding no charge circle.

agree...it is a bit silly to expand the no charge...if its a good idea then why have a charge call at all? of course that is the point. Most of the peeps in the power structure want to end charges all together. Which is above hypocrisy when u consider that they also mention changing the rule to protect the vertical area of the defender. They are basically saying, we do not want a charge called any where in the lane. We also do want a charge called if the defender jumps straight up and the offensive player initiates contact. what? So what if I am a defender in the extended no charge area, jump straight up and you drive the into me assuming both rules were adopted? silly

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-17-2015, 08:39 AM
I think that by "diving" the original article was referring to this from the NCAA article (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-rules-committee-recommends-package-proposals-improve-game):

I don't like the idea of another judgment call in the hands of officials. Best penalty for a dive is "play on."

CDu
05-17-2015, 09:02 AM
Lets start with the 5 second rule -- that came about in response to stall ball. It rewards good defensive play while suppressing delay tactics. Good rule.

In the absence of a shot clock, it was a good rule. With the shot clock in place (and especially with a shorter shot clock), it becomes an unnecessary rule. And it almost never comes into play in stall ball. Stall ball still runs just fine even with the 5-second rule. It is mainly now a gimmick used by defenders to play tough defense for a brief time to try to steal a turnover.


Now for the 10 second rule -- that goes back a long time. It discourages delay tactics in the back court, but it also creates a defensive opportunity to keeps the offense from bringing the ball into the forecourt. Good idea. Without the center line and 10 second rule it becomes chase ball, much worse than stall ball. Just imagine Dean Smith with that. Good thing there is at least a 30 second shot clock. Without the 10 second rule we'd need a 10 second shot clock. The score keeper goes wild.

Again, with the shot clock, the rule becomes unnecessary. And it has next to no influence on stallball. With the shot clock, it is now a gimmick to aid temporary blitzkrieg defense.


Now for the charge circle -- if anything it needs to be larger. It provides visible help to the game officials when making charge calls. Inside that arc, it's blocking. Outside the arc it can be charging, but it's up to the officials to get it right. Better training may help, and so would better wording of the rules. I've noticed lately that the NBA officials get it right most of the time these days. Don't worry, be happy.

I disagree. If a call should be a charge, it should be a charge anywhere on the court. The idea of the arc was in theory to aid the offense and increase safety by reducing the number of attempted charges drawn on shooters. That has not happened; now defenders just try to jump to the edge of the arc as the shooter takes off. And what is happening is that the officials have to check two things: is the defender set, and is the defender outside the circle? It is really hard to do both, and they have tended to err on the side of getting the feet right at the expense of correctly determining the block/charge call itself.

Again, I say, it it is really a charge, call it a charge regardless of where it happens.

Troublemaker
05-17-2015, 11:50 AM
The following table contains Duke's team 3-pt shooting percentages during the KenPom era as well as Duke's national ranks for Defensive Free Throw Rate and Offensive Free Throw Rate for each season during that era.

Defensive Free Throw Rate is a measure of how well your defense is avoiding sending opponents to the line. Offensive Free Throw Rate is a measure of how well your offense gets to the free throw line. Essentially, how well does Duke rank in avoiding fouls on defense and drawing fouls on offense, respectively?

Some particularly low marks are highlighted in red. You can see where I'm going with this based on the years I'm highlighting.



Year
3P%
DFTR Rnk
OFTR Rnk


2015
38.7
4
97


2014
39.5
177
220


2013
39.9
93
87


2012
37.1
93
13


2011
37.4
32
182


2010
38.5
97
158


2009
34.9
56
46


2008
37.7
77
53


2007
38.1
37
91


2006
38.6
26
7


2005
38.0
78
34


2004
36.4
55
61


2003
36.3
185
27


2002
36.3
64
80





The 2009 season was the season the NCAA extended the 3-pt line from 19'9" to 20'9". 2009 was, by far, Duke's worst 3-pt shooting team of the past 14 years with our 34.9% mark that year. You can look at that column of shooting percentages and you'll see mostly 37s and 38s, a couple 39s and a few 36s, but besides 2009, you don't see anything lower than a 36. So, 34.9% is pretty darn low.





As everyone knows, the 2014 season was the season the NCAA decided to more strictly enforce freedom of movement on perimeter ball-handlers. Duke fouled a ton that season, good for Duke's second-lowest DFTR rank of the KenPom era. (2003 was the lowest, being a young team that fouled too much, notably frosh Shelden but also unfortunately senior Casey Sanders.) But the other frustrating thing about 2014 is that not only did we foul too much on defense, we couldn't take advantage of the new rules/emphases to draw fouls on opponents on offense, leading to a horrific rank of 220th in OFTR, worst for Duke in the KenPom era.


My point in all of this is that the previous two seasons when major rule changes/emphases were implemented, Duke seemingly was hurt by them. This upcoming season will include a package of changes that should be even more impactful than 2009 and 2014. Duke needs to do a better job adjusting this time around if we want to contend for big things next season. Hopefully when October practices begin, Duke will be using live refs to scrimmage in practice as often as possible.

Finally, as murky as forecasting the top 10 for next season is right now, it becomes murkier if college basketball officials stick to their guns regarding cleaning up physical play all over the court and allowing freedom of movement for ball-handlers and cutters. Some teams will adjust well to this, and some teams won't. Hopefully, Duke will be among the better adjusters.

luburch
05-17-2015, 12:03 PM
I forgot to mention this earlier, but the NCAA absolutely needs full-time refs. I think this would help as much as most rule changes.

Skitzle
05-17-2015, 02:58 PM
I don't know if this matters, but I crunched some numbers to figure out how much a 30 second shot clock could effect scoring.

First we figure out the average time per possesion
Avg Poss. / Per Game(link (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/possessions-per-game)): 67.17
Total Poss /Game: 134.35 (Avg Poss * 2)
Avg Time of Poss.: 17.9 Seconds (2400 Seconds in game / Total Poss.)

Now lets figure out the projected possession time under the new system.

Seconds on Shot Clock decrease by: 16.67%.
Assumption: The average time per possession will decrease by this percentage.

Projected Avg Time of Poss: 15 Seconds (17.9 decrease by 16.67%)

3 fewer seconds per possession due to a 5 second decrease in the shot clock.

Projected Possessions Per Game = 160
Projected Possession Per Team = 80
An increase of 25 possession per game and 12.5 per team

How does this effect points?

Average Points Per Game (Link (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/points-per-game)): 66.76
Average Points per possession in the NCAA is = .9937 (Points Per Game / Possessions per game (from Above))

Straight conversion:

.9937 * 79.97 (New Possessions Per Game) = 79.47 Points Per Game.

Even if you want to assume that possessions will get less efficient with the new shot clock consider this:
Points per possession would need to decrease from .9937 per possession to .8347 Per possession to maintain a scoring rate of 66.76 points per game.

I don't think efficiency will decrease by 15% because of a shorter clock, but it may go down.

In Summary

You're probably looking at an increase from 66-67 points per game to 72-74 points per game due to the new shot clock.

Do 7 points per team per game make games more exciting? I have no idea. You be the judge.

Would be fun to revisit these numbers next year if these rules pass.

CDu
05-17-2015, 03:19 PM
I don't know if this matters, but I crunched some numbers to figure out how much a 30 second shot clock could effect scoring.

First we figure out the average time per possesion
Avg Poss. / Per Game(link (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/possessions-per-game)): 67.17
Total Poss /Game: 134.35 (Avg Poss * 2)
Avg Time of Poss.: 17.9 Seconds (2400 Seconds in game / Total Poss.)

Now lets figure out the projected possession time under the new system.

Seconds on Shot Clock decrease by: 16.67%.
Assumption: The average time per possession will decrease by this percentage.

Projected Avg Time of Poss: 15 Seconds (17.9 decrease by 16.67%)

3 fewer seconds per possession due to a 5 second decrease in the shot clock.

Projected Possessions Per Game = 160
Projected Possession Per Team = 80
An increase of 25 possession per game and 12.5 per team

How does this effect points?

Average Points Per Game (Link (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/points-per-game)): 66.76
Average Points per possession in the NCAA is = .9937 (Points Per Game / Possessions per game (from Above))

Straight conversion:

.9937 * 79.97 (New Possessions Per Game) = 79.47 Points Per Game.

Even if you want to assume that possessions will get less efficient with the new shot clock consider this:
Points per possession would need to decrease from .9937 per possession to .8347 Per possession to maintain a scoring rate of 66.76 points per game.

I don't think efficiency will decrease by 15% because of a shorter clock, but it may go down.

In Summary

You're probably looking at an increase from 66-67 points per game to 72-74 points per game due to the new shot clock.

Do 7 points per team per game make games more exciting? I have no idea. You be the judge.

Would be fun to revisit these numbers next year if these rules pass.

Good stuff. I would also note that the actual impact on number of possessions may be even smaller. The shot clock only affect the longest of possessions. Fast breaks won't be any faster. Secondary breaks won't be any faster. Your "average" 15-20-second possession will stay the same. It is just those possessions that exceed 25 seconds that may get shortened. So the actual impact on number of possessions might be much smaller.

Jarhead
05-17-2015, 05:12 PM
Lets start with the 5 second rule -- that came about in response to stall ball. It rewards good defensive play while suppressing delay tactics. Good rule.


In the absence of a shot clock, it was a good rule. With the shot clock in place (and especially with a shorter shot clock), it becomes an unnecessary rule. And it almost never comes into play in stall ball. Stall ball still runs just fine even with the 5-second rule. It is mainly now a gimmick used by defenders to play tough defense for a brief time to try to steal a turnover.

Well that gimmick sure gets the fans and the players excited when their team gets that ball. It doesn't have a thing to do with a shot clock. It's part of a good lock down defense. Without it the offense can run time off the clock as it wishes until the shot clock does come in play. Of course you also need the right defenders to execute it.


Now for the 10 second rule -- that goes back a long time. It discourages delay tactics in the back court, but it also creates a defensive opportunity to keeps the offense from bringing the ball into the forecourt. Good idea. Without the center line and 10 second rule it becomes chase ball, much worse than stall ball. Just imagine Dean Smith with that. Good thing there is at least a 30 second shot clock. Without the 10 second rule we'd need a 10 second shot clock. The score keeper goes wild.


Again, with the shot clock, the rule becomes unnecessary. And it has next to no influence on stallball. With the shot clock, it is now a gimmick to aid temporary blitzkrieg defense.

There was a time when only certain players were allowed to go across the center court line. That was changed early on, but it remained in effect for some time for the ladies. It became a full court game some time early in the 20th century. Maybe it was Naismith that inserted the 10 second clock with maybe an official counting down to 10. Who knows? A less obvious form of stall ball was the norm in those days. Scores in the 30 or 40 point range for a game were the norm. The real stall ball was implemented by Dean Smith, as a defensive measure. I don't think it worked all that well. The reasons for a shot clock were quite logical. It's the length that is now being challenged. In the years following WWII a new offense had been introduced. It was the fast break, and it was introduced at Duke with the arrival of Dick Groat. His points per game averaged in the mid-twenty points, an unheard of figure for most of the country. He also introduced the jump shot, a pretty good point builder which replaced the old set shot. No need for a shot clock was ever mentioned.


Now for the charge circle -- if anything it needs to be larger. It provides visible help to the game officials when making charge calls. Inside that arc, it's blocking. Outside the arc it can be charging, but it's up to the officials to get it right. Better training may help, and so would better wording of the rules. I've noticed lately that the NBA officials get it right most of the time these days. Don't worry, be happy.


I disagree. If a call should be a charge, it should be a charge anywhere on the court. The idea of the arc was in theory to aid the offense and increase safety by reducing the number of attempted charges drawn on shooters. That has not happened; now defenders just try to jump to the edge of the arc as the shooter takes off. And what is happening is that the officials have to check two things: is the defender set, and is the defender outside the circle? It is really hard to do both, and they have tended to err on the side of getting the feet right at the expense of correctly determining the block/charge call itself.

Again, I say, it it is really a charge, call it a charge regardless of where it happens.

My guess is that the arc under the basket was intended to create a place where a charge could not be called even if it fit the description of a charge in the rules. In my mind a charge/ block distinction can be better made by considering who is initiating the contact. When the shooter leaves the floor he must be allowed the room to return to the floor. It's not a charge. Conversely, when a defender takes a position on the floor before the shooter leaves the floor it is a charge. That's where those flops happen. Right now that requires the official to do the impossible. That's where the rules need to help the officials.

By the way. Dick Groat's jump shot was his method to avoid being called for a charging foul. He just jumped up straight in the air. Any contact was obviously a block. At least it was obvious back in the early fifties.

swood1000
05-17-2015, 05:51 PM
I don't like the idea of another judgment call in the hands of officials. Best penalty for a dive is "play on."
But it looks like they are initially limiting this to a non "play on" situation: only when video is being used to review a possible flagrant foul. Maybe they have in mind the elbow incidental contact to the head situation - if a player jerks his head back as if it was hit by an elbow, causing play to stop and the monitor to be viewed, and it is conclusively determined that no contact was made, the player is punished for stopping play, basically.

Skitzle
05-17-2015, 05:59 PM
Good stuff. I would also note that the actual impact on number of possessions may be even smaller. The shot clock only affect the longest of possessions. Fast breaks won't be any faster. Secondary breaks won't be any faster. Your "average" 15-20-second possession will stay the same. It is just those possessions that exceed 25 seconds that may get shortened. So the actual impact on number of possessions might be much smaller.

Definitely. The main assumption is that shorter shot clock will lead to shorter possessions If the avg. time of a possession doesn't change, then you won't see a big impact.

For comparisons sake, womens bball uses a 30 second clock. If anyone knows how to find avg possessions per game that would be a good measuring stick.

swood1000
05-17-2015, 06:30 PM
But it looks like they are initially limiting this to a non "play on" situation: only when video is being used to review a possible flagrant foul. Maybe they have in mind the elbow incidental contact to the head situation - if a player jerks his head back as if it was hit by an elbow, causing play to stop and the monitor to be viewed, and it is conclusively determined that no contact was made, the player is punished for stopping play, basically.
So ironically, the less skilled a player is in faking, the less likely it is that he's going to be called for faking. If his effort is so pitiful that the ref can see right through it then the ref will not call a flagrant, the video will not be viewed, and there will be no opportunity to call the fake. Although I suppose that a ref could call the flagrant solely for the purpose of calling the fake, thinking "well, if what he faked really happened it would be a flagrant, so let's give him what he asked for, and we'll look at his actions at the same time."

-jk
05-17-2015, 06:57 PM
Well that gimmick sure gets the fans and the players excited when their team gets that ball. It doesn't have a thing to do with a shot clock. It's part of a good lock down defense. Without it the offense can run time off the clock as it wishes until the shot clock does come in play. Of course you also need the right defenders to execute it.





There was a time when only certain players were allowed to go across the center court line. That was changed early on, but it remained in effect for some time for the ladies. It became a full court game some time early in the 20th century. Maybe it was Naismith that inserted the 10 second clock with maybe an official counting down to 10. Who knows? A less obvious form of stall ball was the norm in those days. Scores in the 30 or 40 point range for a game were the norm. The real stall ball was implemented by Dean Smith, as a defensive measure. I don't think it worked all that well. The reasons for a shot clock were quite logical. It's the length that is now being challenged. In the years following WWII a new offense had been introduced. It was the fast break, and it was introduced at Duke with the arrival of Dick Groat. His points per game averaged in the mid-twenty points, an unheard of figure for most of the country. He also introduced the jump shot, a pretty good point builder which replaced the old set shot. No need for a shot clock was ever mentioned.





My guess is that the arc under the basket was intended to create a place where a charge could not be called even if it fit the description of a charge in the rules. In my mind a charge/ block distinction can be better made by considering who is initiating the contact. When the shooter leaves the floor he must be allowed the room to return to the floor. It's not a charge. Conversely, when a defender takes a position on the floor before the shooter leaves the floor it is a charge. That's where those flops happen. Right now that requires the official to do the impossible. That's where the rules need to help the officials.

By the way. Dick Groat's jump shot was his method to avoid being called for a charging foul. He just jumped up straight in the air. Any contact was obviously a block. At least it was obvious back in the early fifties.

The restricted arc only applies to secondary defenders. The primary defender can still draw a charge under the basket.

-jk

sagegrouse
05-17-2015, 09:05 PM
The restricted arc only applies to secondary defenders. The primary defender can still draw a charge under the basket.

-jk

Thanks, JK -- I was almost sure this was the case. Many of the above comments are a bit irrelevant.

Saratoga2
05-17-2015, 09:53 PM
Any effort to cut the number of time outs will make the game more watchable for me. Between color men like Vitale causing me to mute the TV, and advertising at every conceivable juncture ESPN is kind of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Cutting the time outs by 1 per team should at least improve the watchability at least a little. I think the coaches can adapt to 1 fewer time out.

Jarhead
05-17-2015, 10:45 PM
The restricted arc only applies to secondary defenders. The primary defender can still draw a charge under the basket.

-jk

I didn't know that. How do they determine who that would be in a zone defense?

gep
05-17-2015, 11:47 PM
I also favor less timeouts. And I also would like to see 4 quarters. The 1st-2nd quarter break and the 3rd-4th quarter break can be the "super media timeouts" that might appease TV. Then 3 timeouts per half, with no carry-over from the 1st to the 2nd half... or maybe 2 timeouts per quarter, with no carry-over from one quarter to the next :confused:

CDu
05-18-2015, 08:25 AM
I also favor less timeouts. And I also would like to see 4 quarters. The 1st-2nd quarter break and the 3rd-4th quarter break can be the "super media timeouts" that might appease TV. Then 3 timeouts per half, with no carry-over from the 1st to the 2nd half... or maybe 2 timeouts per quarter, with no carry-over from one quarter to the next :confused:

Three timeouts per half or two per quarter would probably lead to more timeouts per game than currently (5 total; no more than 4 in the second).

CDu
05-18-2015, 08:37 AM
I didn't know that. How do they determine who that would be in a zone defense?

Pretty easily. If the defender is actively guarding the shooter before he takes off, he is primary. Otherwise, he is a help defender. Determining primary vs help is easy. If you are trying to take a charge inside/at the circle, most likely you are a help defender. Determining whether the defender has established his position and simultaneously if said defender is outside the circle is the hard part.

Kfanarmy
05-18-2015, 08:52 AM
Also...I know this is 100% paranoia, but cutting back timeout and replacing the near media timeout with a team timeout if it's called around the same time (or whatever they're describing) seems to take a hit at Duke. K managed fatigue throughout the latter half of the season this way routinely...

yes...that is interesting. K used the strategy heavily to keep guys in the game. This one seems petty/silly. Can a coach not call a timeout 30 seconds after the TV timeout?

Kfanarmy
05-18-2015, 09:25 AM
FIBA now uses 24-second clocks. In general I think FIBA rules are superior and the NCAA should just adopt them wholesale, but I'm fine with 30 instead of 24 for non-professional basketball.

I'm not sure what's so bad about college basketball becoming more like the more-skilled-than-ever (certainly on defense) NBA anyway.

P.S. Not shooting as many mid-range jumpers, which are generally very low expected value shots, is as much a fundamental as good free throw shooting form.

Duke has had several teams that might have been better if a few players had been able to reliably make the mid range shot.

Kfanarmy
05-18-2015, 09:30 AM
I may be a voice in the wilderness but if a defensive player has position anywhere on the court and gets run over its a charge. Now I understand the circle rule is to allow the offensive player an advantage near the hoop and a way to protect them when they are in the air. However wouldn't a better way to do this is to not allow help defense in the 3 second lane. The defensive fan in me would cringe but if the point is to have more scoring then if you get beat outside just let the offensive player have a layup. I know I am being ridiculous but to me this sounds like the point of the ever expanding no charge circle.

Yep, there are just too many players whose whole offensive contribution is dunking the ball. Allow the defender to defend and all of a sudden they have to learn to shoot the ball...that just isn't fair.

toooskies
05-18-2015, 11:33 AM
Duke has had several teams that might have been better if a few players had been able to reliably make the mid range shot.

There's nothing wrong with a 2-point jumper when you make 50% of them. But the NBA league average on long 2s is 40% (I don't have a college example), which is a worse shot than a 3-pointer for anyone who shoots over 27% from 3. If you shoot 50% from 2, that's worth about 37% from 3, which is what Duke typically averages from behind the line. For Duke, searching for a typical 3 is going to be as good of a shot as someone taking a wide open 2. Even the best NBA 2-point shooters (Dirk, Chris Bosh) you'd rather want them taking a 3-pointer-- Bosh has purposely extended his range because the 3 is clearly a better shot, and for most players a closer shot is better, too.

Now, as the shot clock expires a 2-pointer isn't the worst outcome-- better than a turnover. And there are advantages to making defenders guard more than the basket and the 3-point line. But, given a choice between a good long 2 and an average 3, you want the 3 nearly every time.

The player whom I most wish had had a reliable 2-point shot was Josh Hairston. His man could always abandon him on offense to guard the lane because he never made that long 2, despite his propensity for taking it. Sadly his choice was taking a wide open long 2 or passing. But then, I'd have preferred that he'd learned to step 3 feet further out and take the 3.

-----------------------

Obviously, the 30 second clock is the headline item here. Most people who know basketball, know that it won't affect much directly. Teams just rarely use the full thing already. I doubt that the number of possessions that it affects per game, besides stall-ball possessions, will be that great. Despite the shot clock differences between college and the NBA, the pace issues exist almost entirely due to style-based choices which aren't possible in the NBA. Effectively, college basketball's walk-it-up half-court game, then a deliberate offensive possession, is much more common now than 10-15 years ago.

There was a thread about a month ago discussing the 30-second shot clock, in which I pointed out that the slowdown in possessions is probably due to a strategic shift (i.e. guarding the fast break by not crashing the boards on offense, and not running the fast break on defense by crashing the boards on defense) instead of a problem of looking for a good shot using the whole shot clock. To me, that's the only real explanation of what actually changed: per-possession efficiency isn't down, pace of play is down. Fewer teams are looking to score in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock. And that's because teams are better at finding good shots in their half-court offense, by wearing down the other team for 35 seconds.

Narratives like JD's on the front page (lack of fundamentals) don't make sense. Turnovers and steals are down, not up, across all of college basketball (from 21.5% to 19.1% from 2002 to 2015). Shooting percentages have remained static since 2002. Defensive rebounding, however, is up, which is a sign of another better fundamental: boxing out. Sloppy basketball leads to more turnovers, which in turn leads to quick shots at the other end. Instead, we see more methodical offense and more planned defense; better-defended fast breaks (by sending more players back on defense); and improved half-court offense which has made the necessity of running a fast break to get easy shots (at the risk of more turnovers) unnecessary.

I think the biggest difference the 30-second clock makes, though, is more running up and down the court. Players will get tired faster. With that, and fewer timeouts, we'll see less of Quinn and Tyus playing the whole game, and more Grayson Allen/Marshall Plumlee appearances.

Troublemaker
05-18-2015, 01:44 PM
I think the biggest difference the 30-second clock makes, though, is more running up and down the court. Players will get tired faster. With that, and fewer timeouts, we'll see less of Quinn and Tyus playing the whole game, and more Grayson Allen/Marshall Plumlee appearances.

It has definitely crossed my mind that a fast-played game with lots of possessions and lots of fouls (if the officials remain committed to cleaning up physicality throughout the season) is a game that's right in UNC's wheelhouse since Roy loves playing fast and going deep into the bench.

If next season's college basketball product is what the rules committee envisions it to be (no guarantee of that, of course), I'm more convinced than ever that UNC is a top 3 team next season.

Highlander
05-18-2015, 02:04 PM
http://www.orangehoops.org/NCAA/NCAA%20Rule%20Changes.htm

I find it interesting that they are planning to remove this rule a second time after the last 4 year experiment was deemed a failure. For those of you who may have forgotten, the 5 second rule was eliminated prior to the 1993-1994 season, then reinstated in 1997-1998. This coincided pretty much with my time at Duke.

One result of eliminating the 5s rule was that it created more 1v1 play, especially at the end of the game. Players like Grant Hill would sit at the top of the key and dribble away for as long as they wanted to, regardless of how close they were being defended. All they had to do was keep their dribble alive. When the shot clock wound down, they'd make a move to break down their defender and drive to the basket.

IMO, one player hurt significantly (and then helped significantly) by this rule change was Wojo. As a tenacious defender who wasn't particularly quick, he had difficulty staying in front of fast guys. When the rule was reinstated for his senior year, defenders now they had to respect his ability to guard them closely out on the perimeter and his defensive effectiveness went up considerably. He was a NDPOY his senior year, and I firmly believe the rule change helped him considerably due to his style.

While this rule was probably created during the era of no shot clock, it serves another purpose which was to reward team defense. Without it, you place an emphasis on 1v1 play. One of the things I have always liked about college ball vs. professional is the emphasis on
Personally, I love the 5s closely guarded call because it is a defensive momentum shifter, much like a blocked shot. Wojo's dog pound went crazy whenever he drew a 5 second call.

Troublemaker
05-18-2015, 02:42 PM
http://www.orangehoops.org/NCAA/NCAA%20Rule%20Changes.htm

I find it interesting that they are planning to remove this rule a second time after the last 4 year experiment was deemed a failure. For those of you who may have forgotten, the 5 second rule was eliminated prior to the 1993-1994 season, then reinstated in 1997-1998. This coincided pretty much with my time at Duke.

One result of eliminating the 5s rule was that it created more 1v1 play, especially at the end of the game. Players like Grant Hill would sit at the top of the key and dribble away for as long as they wanted to, regardless of how close they were being defended. All they had to do was keep their dribble alive. When the shot clock wound down, they'd make a move to break down their defender and drive to the basket.

IMO, one player hurt significantly (and then helped significantly) by this rule change was Wojo. As a tenacious defender who wasn't particularly quick, he had difficulty staying in front of fast guys. When the rule was reinstated for his senior year, defenders now they had to respect his ability to guard them closely out on the perimeter and his defensive effectiveness went up considerably. He was a NDPOY his senior year, and I firmly believe the rule change helped him considerably due to his style.

While this rule was probably created during the era of no shot clock, it serves another purpose which was to reward team defense. Without it, you place an emphasis on 1v1 play. One of the things I have always liked about college ball vs. professional is the emphasis on
Personally, I love the 5s closely guarded call because it is a defensive momentum shifter, much like a blocked shot. Wojo's dog pound went crazy whenever he drew a 5 second call.

Very interesting points. Can't help but think Duke will miss out on a few 5-second calls the way Coach K talked up Derryck Thornton's ball pressure ability.

That said, the initiative for less physicality in the post might stand to benefit Ingram, Jeter, and Jefferson next season (and perhaps lower the relative value of brickhouse-built big men like Obi and Plumlee.)

Hopefully, the new refereeing environment will be a net-positive for Duke next season, but I feel that's up in the air. With UNC, however, I feel there is more clarity and I unfortunately believe the new refereeing environment will benefit them, as stated above.

devildeac
05-18-2015, 05:22 PM
Very interesting points. Can't help but think Duke will miss out on a few 5-second calls the way Coach K talked up Derryck Thornton's ball pressure ability.

That said, the initiative for less physicality in the post might stand to benefit Ingram, Jeter, and Jefferson next season (and perhaps lower the relative value of brickhouse-built big men like Obi and Plumlee.)

Hopefully, the new refereeing environment will be a net-positive for Duke next season, but I feel that's up in the air. With UNC, however, I feel there is more clarity and I unfortunately believe the new refereeing environment will benefit them, as stated above.


Does that mean that we'll be getting more than "all the calls?";)

Acymetric
05-18-2015, 06:17 PM
There's nothing wrong with a 2-point jumper when you make 50% of them. But the NBA league average on long 2s is 40% (I don't have a college example), which is a worse shot than a 3-pointer for anyone who shoots over 27% from 3. If you shoot 50% from 2, that's worth about 37% from 3, which is what Duke typically averages from behind the line. For Duke, searching for a typical 3 is going to be as good of a shot as someone taking a wide open 2. Even the best NBA 2-point shooters (Dirk, Chris Bosh) you'd rather want them taking a 3-pointer-- Bosh has purposely extended his range because the 3 is clearly a better shot, and for most players a closer shot is better, too.

Now, as the shot clock expires a 2-pointer isn't the worst outcome-- better than a turnover. And there are advantages to making defenders guard more than the basket and the 3-point line. But, given a choice between a good long 2 and an average 3, you want the 3 nearly every time.

The player whom I most wish had had a reliable 2-point shot was Josh Hairston. His man could always abandon him on offense to guard the lane because he never made that long 2, despite his propensity for taking it. Sadly his choice was taking a wide open long 2 or passing. But then, I'd have preferred that he'd learned to step 3 feet further out and take the 3.


The valuable part of a midrange game is not the eFG%, it is the impact it has on how a team defends you which can open up better looks for the player taking them as well as other players on the court during other possessions.

Olympic Fan
05-18-2015, 07:53 PM
I had dinner Monday night with an ACC basketball guy, who had a great suggestion (at least in my mind). He hates the way late-game reviews turn into timeouts as the players huddle around their coaches -- which in turn slows things down because even after a decision is reached, it takes time to get them out of the huddle.

His suggestion is that the five players on the floor have to huddle at the foul line opposite their bench during reviews.

I like the idea ... and maybe extend it to the uncharged "time outs' when a player fouls out. The time to make a change in those situations should definitely be shortened.

CDu
05-18-2015, 08:10 PM
The valuable part of a midrange game is not the eFG%, it is the impact it has on how a team defends you which can open up better looks for the player taking them as well as other players on the court during other possessions.

Well, that and the fact that most disciplined defenses tend to allow that shot (the 12-18 footer). If you can hit that shot consistently, you can punish defenses for allowing it.

Wheat/"/"/"
05-18-2015, 10:28 PM
Been crazy busy lately and haven't had much time check the board or read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been discussed...

The biggest rule change I think the college game needs is for the Refs to stop calling defensive fouls when the defender has established good position on a offensive player driving to the hoop and that offensive player clearly creates the contact.

It penalizes good defense, which I don't think should ever happen. Too many "and 1's" when there was no real defensive foul in the first place...where the defender never would have made contact had the offensive player not drove into him to "create space". We see that time and again in big college games.

I have no problem with a offensive player going strong to the basket, even getting into the defender, and creating that space, (unless it gets into charge territory).

It should be simply a no call when the offensive player gets into the defenders body to create some space...reasonably allow that contact initiated by the offensive guy...but don't penalize a defender unless he is off balance and late to recover.

My two cents...

UrinalCake
05-19-2015, 12:02 AM
The biggest rule change I think the college game needs is for the Refs to stop calling defensive fouls when the defender has established good position on a offensive player driving to the hoop and that offensive player clearly creates the contact.

Exceptions to that rule are when the offensive player a.) throws his head back, b.) kicks his leg forward, or c.) karate-kicks his defender in mid-air.

jv001
05-19-2015, 07:14 AM
Been crazy busy lately and haven't had much time check the board or read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been discussed...

The biggest rule change I think the college game needs is for the Refs to stop calling defensive fouls when the defender has established good position on a offensive player driving to the hoop and that offensive player clearly creates the contact.

It penalizes good defense, which I don't think should ever happen. Too many "and 1's" when there was no real defensive foul in the first place...where the defender never would have made contact had the offensive player not drove into him to "create space". We see that time and again in big college games.

I have no problem with a offensive player going strong to the basket, even getting into the defender, and creating that space, (unless it gets into charge territory).

It should be simply a no call when the offensive player gets into the defenders body to create some space...reasonably allow that contact initiated by the offensive guy...but don't penalize a defender unless he is off balance and late to recover.

My two cents...

I first thought of Winslow when I read the post but then I remembered the player best at throwing himself into the defender. Mr. Hanstravel had this move down better than any I can ever remember. GoDuke!

Wheat/"/"/"
05-19-2015, 07:40 AM
Whatever guys,....my comment was not any kind of rivalry observation, both UNC and Duke (and everybody else) have had offensive players good at "drawing" contact, when they clearly created it.

I don't like it, and say play on. If you're gonna initiate the contact, play through it,(if it doesn't reach charge level).

Don't hope a Ref bails you out with a call and penalize the player who was in good defensive position.

jv001
05-19-2015, 07:31 PM
Whatever guys,....my comment was not any kind of rivalry observation, both UNC and Duke (and everybody else) have had offensive players good at "drawing" contact, when they clearly created it.

I don't like it, and say play on. If you're gonna initiate the contact, play through it,(if it doesn't reach charge level).

Don't hope a Ref bails you out with a call and penalize the player who was in good defensive position.

I agree with this 100%(bolded). But I still want to see "palming/carrying" the ball called more. And that will help the defense as much as anything. GoDuke!

Clay Feet POF
05-21-2015, 08:00 PM
Any mention of lifting the Ban on digits 6-9 on the Jerseys. Seems like with in game video replay, a major obstacle is removed and fresh new numbers could be used. I'm sure the players would welcome it.

Newton_14
05-21-2015, 08:41 PM
Any mention of lifting the Ban on digits 6-9 on the Jerseys. Seems like with in game video replay, a major obstacle is removed and fresh new numbers could be used. I'm sure the players would welcome it. Yeah this has long been one of the most asinine rules in the game. The change needs to be sooner rather than later.

BigWayne
05-21-2015, 09:14 PM
Yeah this has long been one of the most asinine rules in the game. The change needs to be sooner rather than later.
You do know why this rule exists, right?

5135

Bluedog
05-21-2015, 09:19 PM
You do know why this rule exists, right?

5135

Yet somehow NBA refs manage despite not all having polydactyly.

BigWayne
05-22-2015, 04:04 AM
Yet somehow NBA refs manage despite not all having polydactyly.
Yes, but I gave up NBA games after the 1995 strike so I can't really remember how they deal with it. Do they do like the Deadliest Catch guys do when reporting the crab count?

Clay Feet POF
05-23-2015, 02:50 PM
Yet somehow NBA refs manage despite not all having polydactyly.


Thanks for increasing my vocabulary by two…more or less.

hurleyfor3
05-23-2015, 02:56 PM
Yet somehow NBA refs manage despite not all having polydactyly.

Not to mention floor traders, where a lot more is at stake if a signal is misinterpreted. Numbers up to 999 use only one hand, with buy and sell further separate.

swood1000
05-29-2015, 11:37 AM
Coach K likes the rule changes.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/duke-now/article22535553.html

hurleyfor3
06-08-2015, 06:36 PM
Pretty much everything passed.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13037928/ncaa-announces-rule-changes-2015-16-including-30-second-shot-clock-fewer-outs

I don't like the change to the 10-second rule and I'm disappointed they didn't seem to improve the replay review rules, but they didn't ask me.

BigWayne
06-08-2015, 06:50 PM
Actual NCAA site link with more details. (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-06-08/ncaa-changes-shot-clock-30-seconds-makes-other-changes-game)

One I hadn't heard them talk about before:

Faking fouls

During the use of a video review to see if a possible flagrant foul occurred, the panel approved a rule that would allow officials to penalize players who fake fouls. The NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee felt that players trying to draw fouls by deception is a growing issue.

So now when they go to do the review, the can punish a guy that tries to fake/draw a flagrant foul call.

bedeviled
06-08-2015, 06:56 PM
The men's basketball rules committee recommended the rule changes after months debating how to increase scoring and speed up playThank goodness. I was starting to worry that college basketball would die like other slow, low-scoring sports (eg baseball, football, soccer, golf). Now, if we can double the points after the first timeout, basketball might finally be able to catch up to jai alai! [/sorrycasm]
[Joke fail: longer than 140 characters]:rolleyes:

Tripping William
06-08-2015, 07:00 PM
Thank goodness. I was starting to worry that college basketball would die like other slow, low-scoring sports (eg baseball, football, soccer, golf). Now, if we can double the points after the first timeout, basketball might finally be able to catch up to jai alai! [/sorrycasm]
[Joke fail: longer than 140 characters]:rolleyes:

Golf is not low-scoring. Just ask Tiger Woods.

hurleyfor3
06-08-2015, 07:07 PM
Actual NCAA site link with more details. (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-06-08/ncaa-changes-shot-clock-30-seconds-makes-other-changes-game)

Not enough details, unfortunately.


Teams will also have one fewer team timeout (only three can carry over instead of four) in the second half.

This implies there are still five timeouts, but that the first half now has two expiring timeouts, rather than one.


Removing the ability for a coach to call timeout when the ball is live.

Is a player still able to call timeout during a live ball, such as when trapped? If so, I'm not sure this changes much. But if it also applies to players it will probably lead to less scoring due to turnovers. Also, is a "live ball" for this purpose any time the clock is running, meaning a coach cannot call timeout after a made basket except in the last minute?


Reducing the amount of time allotted to replace a disqualified player from 20 to 15 seconds.

What a useless change. You can still stop the game for five minutes to determine whether there are 1.3 seconds left or 1.4.

BigWayne
06-08-2015, 10:16 PM
I didn't say it had all the details, just more than the espn link.

On the live ball timeouts, the after a made basket one is pretty key and I hope they are including that as a live ball situation when the coach can't call one. Players can still call timeouts I think, but the ones you will get stopped are the ones where a scramble for the ball is going on and the coach calls timeout. I really do hate those ones as many times the player doesn't really have solid control of the ball for more than a split second.

devildeac
06-08-2015, 10:36 PM
Actual NCAA site link with more details. (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-06-08/ncaa-changes-shot-clock-30-seconds-makes-other-changes-game)

One I hadn't heard them talk about before:

Faking fouls

During the use of a video review to see if a possible flagrant foul occurred, the panel approved a rule that would allow officials to penalize players who fake fouls. The NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee felt that players trying to draw fouls by deception is a growing issue.

So now when they go to do the review, the can punish a guy that tries to fake/draw a flagrant foul call.

I can already see jamie luckie holding up one of these:

5181

OldPhiKap
06-08-2015, 10:41 PM
I can already see jamie luckie holding up one of these:

5181

http://youtu.be/X5fYJcdEeiM

Tom B.
06-08-2015, 11:08 PM
Other changes include . . . experimenting with a sixth foul during next season's lower-tier postseason tourneys.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07zYvkNYL8