Rules Changes for 2023-24

[grad_devil]

Thought this article might be interesting fodder for off season discussion.

Among the more interesting (to me) proposed rules changes (some copied directly from the article):

• a defender must be set before the offensive player plants their foot to go airborne to draw a charge
• Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team would be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.
• A timeout would be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne - like it used to be, I guess
• Players would be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.
• Anytime the ball hits the rim and the offense retains possession in the front court, the shot clock would reset to 20 seconds.

One of the experimental changes for 23-24 would be to widen the lane to 16' in the NIT.

[scottdude8]

Thought this article might be interesting fodder for off season discussion.

Among the more interesting (to me) proposed rules changes (some copied directly from the article):

• a defender must be set before the offensive player plants their foot to go airborne to draw a charge
• Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team would be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.
• A timeout would be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne - like it used to be, I guess
• Players would be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.
• Anytime the ball hits the rim and the offense retains possession in the front court, the shot clock would reset to 20 seconds.

One of the experimental changes for 23-24 would be to widen the lane to 16' in the NIT.

I actually like most of these! The first takes some of the subjectivity out of the block/charge call... while certainly challenging to assess in real time, this is a legit threshold that must be satisfied for there to be a charge. It also pushes the balance between block/charge back towards block, something Jay Bilas will love.

The second confuses me, because I didn't think coaches were ever "asking" for a review, but rather the refs initiated the review automatically on any OOB call they felt was legitimately questionable. I actually think a challenge system is better since it'll speed things up and make sure only really questionable/impactful calls are reviewed, but that'll need some clarification.

I'm sure purists will object to new jersey numbers (we already had a minor dustup about Duke players wearing #1 this week, haha), but I think that's great. One more way that players can express their individuality, perhaps differentiate their brand (in the NIL world), and hopefully minimize the need to "unretire" retired numbers (which I hope satisfies the purists!).

[tommy]

I don't like the high digit jersey numbers. At least the first digit should be 1-5 as is traditional. The digits 6-9 I guess are OK as a second digit if the first digit is maybe 1, 2, or 3, but I don't even like guys wearing 47 or 58, much less 76 or 95. Those are all football numbers and look terrible on a basketball player I think.

[CameronDuke]

Who will be the first Duke men’s basketball player to wear a non 0-5 digit jersey number in history? And what will it be?

Regarding the shot clock being reset to 20 seconds, what’s the change to that rule? It seems that was already the case the majority of the time already so what am I missing?

[JasonEvans]

I don't like the high digit jersey numbers. At least the first digit should be 1-5 as is traditional. The digits 6-9 I guess are OK as a second digit if the first digit is maybe 1, 2, or 3, but I don't even like guys wearing 47 or 58, much less 76 or 95. Those are all football numbers and look terrible on a basketball player I think.

I always thought this looked screwy.

[Bluedog]

Wow, I thought this board would have a universal consensus on loving the jersey number change as with all the "jersey retirement" threads in the past, people would lament that there aren't that many numbers left and "is it really that hard for officials to use both hands?!". I guess with the current trend, we're not likely to see any more jersey retirements so perhaps that concern has gone out the window. But I like it, might as well give players the choice.

[rsvman]

Here are the changes I would love to see:

1) Elam ending for every game.

2) Six fouls for removal from the game.

3) Shot clock back to 35 or 40 seconds.

4) Move the three-point line further back.

5) Widen the lane.

6) Get rid of the one-and-one. Two free throws after the 8th foul. No free throws otherwise except fouled in the act of shooting, technicals, flagrants, and and-ones.

[brlftz]

I would eliminate fouling out altogether. I don’t find officiating consistent or fair enough to have it determine who is ejected from the game. I’d rather have some other form of deterrent that still allows players to stay in the game.

[Southgate0809]

Thought this article might be interesting fodder for off season discussion.

Among the more interesting (to me) proposed rules changes (some copied directly from the article):

• a defender must be set before the offensive player plants their foot to go airborne to draw a charge
• Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team would be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.
• A timeout would be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne - like it used to be, I guess
• Players would be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.
• Anytime the ball hits the rim and the offense retains possession in the front court, the shot clock would reset to 20 seconds.

One of the experimental changes for 23-24 would be to widen the lane to 16' in the NIT.

I feel like they originally started messing with 2 of those rules just because of Shane Battier. Sliding in at the last minute to draw the charge and calling timeout while jumping out of bounds.

I don't particularly care what numbers people wear, but if that change is in the name of player freedom, we need to give it a rest. Maybe we should suggest a rule that a coach isn't allowed to sub a player out of a game without the player's consent.

[Matches]

6) Get rid of the one-and-one. Two free throws after the 8th foul. No free throws otherwise except fouled in the act of shooting, technicals, flagrants, and and-ones.

I’ll second that one. The 1-and-1 is dumb. I will say, though, that no changes to the number of fouls or their effect is going to work without improving the quality of the officiating. I’ve been following this stuff for 40 years and have never seen officiating be as uniformly lousy as it is right now.

[blazindw]

Thought this article might be interesting fodder for off season discussion.

Among the more interesting (to me) proposed rules changes (some copied directly from the article):

• a defender must be set before the offensive player plants their foot to go airborne to draw a charge
• Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team would be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.
• A timeout would be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne - like it used to be, I guess
• Players would be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.
• Anytime the ball hits the rim and the offense retains possession in the front court, the shot clock would reset to 20 seconds.

One of the experimental changes for 23-24 would be to widen the lane to 16' in the NIT.

Count me as forever in on having players wear whatever jersey number they want. There is nothing traditional about players wearing only numbers that end in 0-5, because over the course of basketball, we've seen many great players have numbers that end in 6-9. George Mikan wore 99! The NBA just retired #6 for Bill Russell. Gheorghe Muresan wore 77 (cuz he is 7'7"). Pistol Pete Maravich wore #7. The idea that referees absolutely need to be able to signal a jersey number with 2 hands has always been a laughable one because referees have been able to signal for jersey numbers 6-9 in the NBA since the beginning of the league.

I like the changes to the "help defense" charge rule. It will be interesting to see how referees call it on the floor...there may be a bit of a learning curve. I also like the out of bounds "challenge" rule.

Finally, I believe the NBA has had it for a few years that an offensive rebound resets the shot clock to 14 seconds instead of a full 24, so I'm for the shot clock in college resetting to 20 seconds instead of 30 on an offensive rebound. The idea is that it creates more possessions and (hopefully) more shots and points.

[BlueDevil2K]

Count me as forever in on having players wear whatever jersey number they want. There is nothing traditional about players wearing only numbers that end in 0-5, because over the course of basketball, we've seen many great players have numbers that end in 6-9. George Mikan wore 99! The NBA just retired #6 for Bill Russell. Gheorghe Muresan wore 77 (cuz he is 7'7"). Pistol Pete Maravich wore #7. The idea that referees absolutely need to be able to signal a jersey number with 2 hands has always been a laughable one because referees have been able to signal for jersey numbers 6-9 in the NBA since the beginning of the league.

I like the changes to the "help defense" charge rule. It will be interesting to see how referees call it on the floor...there may be a bit of a learning curve. I also like the out of bounds "challenge" rule.

Finally, I believe the NBA has had it for a few years that an offensive rebound resets the shot clock to 14 seconds instead of a full 24, so I'm for the shot clock in college resetting to 20 seconds instead of 30 on an offensive rebound. The idea is that it creates more possessions and (hopefully) more shots and points.

I think the shot clock thing is a minor tweak. If I understand correctly, today it is "reset" to the larger of 20 or the current time - in other words, it only resets if less than 20. This rule appears to also reset it down if the shot was in the first 10 seconds. Seems like something that will rarely come into play. If the first shot came in <10 seconds, the subsequent shot is probably coming in <20.

[msdukie]

Who will be the first Duke men’s basketball player to wear a non 0-5 digit jersey number in history? And what will it be?

Regarding the shot clock being reset to 20 seconds, what’s the change to that rule? It seems that was already the case the majority of the time already so what am I missing?

Well, it's already happened since the 0-5 jersey rule only went into effect in the the 1950s.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Maybe part of the new rules can be a moving screen regulation that makes sense and is called consistently. I swear, every single game I see so many screens that would have been illegal when I played that aren't called.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Maybe part of the new rules can be a moving screen regulation that makes sense and is called consistently. I swear, every single game I see so many screens that would have been illegal when I played that aren't called.

And we call it "The Bacot Rule."

[CameronBornAndBred]

Wow, I thought this board would have a universal consensus on loving the jersey number change as with all the "jersey retirement" threads in the past, people would lament that there aren't that many numbers left and "is it really that hard for officials to use both hands?!". I guess with the current trend, we're not likely to see any more jersey retirements so perhaps that concern has gone out the window. But I like it, might as well give players the choice.

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

[Lauderdevil]

Who will be the first Duke men’s basketball player to wear a non 0-5 digit jersey number in history? And what will it be?

I’d bet on 8, in homage to Kobe. But realistically, most of those newly available single-digit jerseys would be gobbled up.

[sagegrouse]

I reserve the right to grouse about changes in the rules that affect the game on the floor. This has no such effect, so, who cares? I don't.

[House P]

Maybe part of the new rules can be a moving screen regulation that makes sense and is called consistently. I swear, every single game I see so many screens that would have been illegal when I played that aren't called.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I have no idea what a moving screen is these days. It seems that you no longer have to remain set for a screen if you are rolling to the basket, even if your intent isn’t really to roll to the basket as much as it is to interfere with the primary defender. Back in the day this would not have been allowed.

[gep]

Maybe part of the new rules can be a moving screen regulation that makes sense and is called consistently. I swear, every single game I see so many screens that would have been illegal when I played that aren't called.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I have no idea what a moving screen is these days. It seems that you no longer have to remain set for a screen if you are rolling to the basket, even if your intent isn’t really to roll to the basket as much as it is to interfere with the primary defender. Back in the day this would not have been allowed.

What about travelling, bumping, 3 seconds in the lane, etc. All illegal back in the "way back days". That "euro-step" drivees me crazy.