FIBA vs. NBA/NCAA/NFHS

[JetMetFan]

An assignor friend started this on FB so I thought I'd brnig the question here.

What, if any, FIBA rules would you like to see used in the NBA/NCAA/NFHS? Here's a link to the FIBA rule book to help you along.

http://www.fiba.com/downloads/Rules/...lRules2012.pdf

Just to get things started, two I like are:

*19.3.6 (if a coach doesn't provide a substitute for a disqualified player in the allotted time their team is charged with a time out). They only get a T if they don't have a time out.

*29.1.2 (if a shot misses the rim after the shot-clock expires and the defensive team has immediate and clear control of the ball, play continues).

[JRutledge]

Honestly I cannot think of a single rule that I would care to adopt from FIBA to any level. I just do not like their approach to the game of basketball in general and I do not think any rule they have would make the game better.

Peace

[APG]

The only thing you're going to get a lot of people here to say in any kind of numbers is only allowing coaches to call timeouts.

There's only one rule I can think of off the top of my head that I think FIBA does better...free throw violations (not by the shooter) by either team is ignored if the free throw is made. There are people calling for the NBA to adopt FIBA's goaltending/BI rules, and I don't see the need for it.

But in general I have to agree with JRut's in that I'm not a huge fan of FIBA's approach to the game...though it has gotten better as they've more closely matched the NBA/NCAA.

[justacoach]

Not sure about what specific rules we should adopt. I do vote strongly that we engage their rule book EDITORS. I often find myself admiring the lucidity of their writing style when compared to the cramped, stilted and often contradictory drivel promulgated by the NFHS editors.

[JugglingReferee]

I'm a minimalist. I like game flow and less whistles.

The clear defensive rebound on a missed-the-ring FGA at the buzzer is great.

Shooting the penalty on the 5th of each quarter is great: games I work hit the penalty less often.

Advancing the ball to the FC 28' line after a Team A timeout makes for some great dramatic endings.

Having the coaches deal with the table for TOs is great - there's no "timeout! timeout! timeout!" as a player with control just touches out of bounds.

The ignoring of the FT violations is awesome. Less whistles - get the game going again.

The clear path rule - that's great too. You actually have to make an effort to play good defense.

And that's just for starters!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The FIBA Closely Guarded rule is three feet not six feet, only while holding the ball, and in both the Backcourt and the Front Court. I would adopt the three feet while only holding the ball in the Front Court.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I should clarify, that I am advocating this adoption for NFHS and NCAA Men's because NCAA Women's has always used the FIBA rule (but I would adopt Front Court only for NCAA Women's too).

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The clear defensive rebound on a missed-the-ring FGA at the buzzer is great.

Agreed. I don't see any point in stopping the game when the defense already has the ball back.

Shooting the penalty on the 5th of each quarter is great: games I work hit the penalty less often.

I wouldn't mind NFHS looking into this. Of course, the NCAA would have to switch to 4 tens to make this happen, and with all of those media time-outs anyway, that wouldn't be such a stretch.

Advancing the ball to the FC 28' line after a Team A timeout makes for some great dramatic endings.

Having the coaches deal with the table for TOs is great - there's no "timeout! timeout! timeout!" as a player with control just touches out of bounds.

The ignoring of the FT violations is awesome. Less whistles - get the game going again.

I'm dead set against all three of these:
*Why should the offense get the ball at a spot on the floor they haven't earned?
*The live-ball time-out is a big part of the American game. I'd be stunned to see rules committees make changes here.
*If you allow offensive players to violate on free throws, you're going to see a lot more violations when the shot is missed. The point of the enforcement is to discourage violations.

The clear path rule - that's great too. You actually have to make an effort to play good defense.

I missed something here. What's this rule?

[APG]

I don't understand that line of thinking. As is right now, we do the exact same thing for the defense in that if they violate, we only care if the free throw is missed. That same would happen if we treated offensive violations the exact same way.

As for the clear path rule,

FIBA 2012
Rule 6, Article 32

36.1.3 To judge whether a foul is unsportsmanlike, the officials should apply the following principles:
...

• If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the offensive player and the opponents’ basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.

The NBA has a similar rule except it's a little more stringent...

There must be new team possession (as in they have to have held/dribbled the ball before they got fouled)
The play must originate in the backcourt (including throw-in in the backcourt)
The foul must occur between the tip of the court in the backcourt extended and the basket in the frontcourt court
When the player was fouled, there was no defender between the offensive player and the basket.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The FIBA Closely Guarded rule is three feet.

Actually, it's 1 metre. FIBA uses the Metric Measurement System.

Plus, 1 metre is 3.28084 feet.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Actually, it's 1 metre. FIBA uses the Metric Measurement System.

Plus, 1 metre is 3.28084 feet.

Is a "metre" the same as a "meter"?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Is a "metre" the same as a "meter"?

I don't know.

What's a meter?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I don't understand that line of thinking. As is right now, we do the exact same thing for the defense in that if they violate, we only care if the free throw is missed.

Right, because to penalize a defensive violation when the free throw is good is to unfairly punish the offense. Such a penalty makes no sense.

It could be worse, though. Looking at the soccer equivalent, the penalty kick, if the offense violates, and the goal is good, we re-shoot. Anyone in favor of going that route in basketball? (ducking)

If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the offensive player and the opponents’ basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.

Thanks. I remember this.

I saw this applied in a USA women's game vs. Croatia over the weekend. I saw I foul that I probably would have let go -- clear breakaway from the division line, contact, though neither heavy nor advantageous -- because the contact didn't neutralize anything. While we have the intentional foul in our NFHS rule book, it doesn't specifically cover break-aways (though that could be left to local interpretation).

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Plus, 1 metre is 3.28084 feet.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt at 3.2 feet, but at 3.1, I'm counting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Right, because to penalize a defensive violation when the free throw is good is to unfairly punish the offense. Such a penalty makes no sense.

It could be worse, though. Looking at the soccer equivalent, the penalty kick, if the offense violates, and the goal is good, we re-shoot. Anyone in favor of going that route in basketball? (ducking)


Thanks. I remember this.

I saw this applied in a USA women's game vs. Croatia over the weekend. I saw I foul that I probably would have let go -- clear breakaway from the division line, contact, though neither heavy nor advantageous -- because the contact didn't neutralize anything. While we have the intentional foul in our NFHS rule book, it doesn't specifically cover break-aways (though that could be left to local interpretation).

If it wasn't advantageous, why not just let the dribbler continue for an uncontested layup? If it was advantageous, then the NFHS intentional foul rule would apply.

And while I wouldn't be against allowing the offense to reshoot, I see no reason to lessen the penalty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And while I wouldn't be against allowing the offense to reshoot, I see no reason to lessen the penalty.

I think the FT violation penalties are inequitable. I think the soccer has it at least partially right. If the shot ends in a preferred manner for the violating team (make for the offense, miss for the defense), reshoot. If the shot ends in an undesirable manner for the violating team, let it stand....which we already do for defensive violations. For offensive violations on miss, we'd probably need to award the ball to the defense since the offense probably got a rebounding advantage by violating.