NCAA-M Summer Rules Training Video

[Nevadaref]

The NCAA will make whatever changes they believe will generate more money.

That said, one could contend either that the loose ball foul was created because the NCAA thinks higher scoring games (shoot more FTs) are more appealing to paying fans and viewers or that because officials repeatedly messed up the prior team control foul rule when the ball had been knocked away. Seems to me that more FTs aren't exciting and that the rule change is directly a result of screw-ups by game officials.

[Rich]

I think the loose ball foul change makes a world of sense. This is one I'd love to see make it down to HS. It's a gotcha situation that gets screwed up all the time and I'm guessing isn't really what was intended originally.

At 2:43 I don't see a foul as the defender is giving ground. 3:06 is clearly embellishment by the defender, I don't see what the offensive player did wrong. I feel like coaches this year are going to be very confused about exactly what constitutes a post foul.

I love the cylinder rule, wish it would come down to HS. Lotsa HS coaches are gonna be confused this year when I call a body foul on a defender for, in their eyes, "playing good defense".

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I love the cylinder rule, wish it would come down to HS. Lotsa HS coaches are gonna be confused this year when I call a body foul on a defender for, in their eyes, "playing good defense".

As would I if I was a coach. You're going to intentionally apply an NCAA rule in a high school game?

If that's not the definition of big-timing, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by SC Official

As would I if I was a coach. You're going to intentionally apply an NCAA rule in a high school game?

Nope, not gonna use the cylinder signal or tell the coaches that. But I may call some more body fouls when a defender is draped all over an offensive player (NFHS displacement). I think it's good for the game to clean that stuff up.

[JRutledge]

Well I was at a camp that had a D1 supervisor and a D1 official that assigns D2, NAIA and JUCO conferences where we used college rules for the weekend. I can tell you that the application of a couple of these rules was not a big deal. Like where we put the ball in play after a foul in the front court. There were some questions about certain situations and application of the rule which we did not have total clarification about. The resetting of the shot clock was not a bad change. I think that was a way to shorten the time that is wasted and cause action instead of just changing the shot clock from 30 to 24. It sounded like a compromise which works very well from what I could tell. The issue is going to be getting to the season and not having this applied properly for many officials. I have a leg up because of this camp and many camps do not have this opportunity to work those rules. Then again I had 9 games to work on this and watched a few others.

The rule I think is completely stupid at this point was the new backcourt application. That rule was fine. I do not have as much problem with the loose ball foul situation (they did not need to make that change) when that does not happen very often. But the BC situation happens at least in theory a couple of times a game on some level. I had a BC violation where the ball was clearly only touched by the offensive team, but I had to pause a second to make sure I was applying the rule correctly in my mind. Some clinicians felt that rule change as silly as well.

The problem is they changed some things drastically in the last 2 years with around 40 changes. I think that is a lot and some were unnecessary just to change the perception of the game. And the obvious things were not changed like the quarter length and foul/bonus situation. Even though I would not have liked those to be changed, that would have made more sense in the long run.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nope, not gonna use the cylinder signal or tell the coaches that. But I may call some more body fouls when a defender is draped all over an offensive player (NFHS displacement). I think it's good for the game to clean that stuff up.

Fair.

The backcourt rule will be the most difficult thing for those bouncing between NFHS and NCAA, IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

At 2:43 I don't see a foul as the defender is giving ground. 3:06 is clearly embellishment by the defender, I don't see what the offensive player did wrong. I feel like coaches this year are going to be very confused about exactly what constitutes a post foul.

I love the cylinder rule, wish it would come down to HS. Lotsa HS coaches are gonna be confused this year when I call a body foul on a defender for, in their eyes, "playing good defense".

2:43--he's giving ground because his other choice would be put his knee in the offensive player's a$$, at which point a defensive foul would be called. The video is telling us to call that a foul on the offense.

3:06--the offensive player stuck his elbow in the defender's face. Let that go a few times and good luck officiating the post for the rest of the game. Plus, why do people think that an embellishment by a player negates the illegal action of his opponent?

[Raymond]

The play that needs to be looked out for is the one at 4:00. JD wants us to call a foul on the defensive player but the offensive player grabbed the defensive player's arm then pulled it up to make it appear the defense was doing something illegal.

Originally Posted by Raymond

The play that needs to be looked out for is the one at 4:00. JD wants us to call a foul on the defensive player but the offensive player grabbed the defensive player's arm then pulled it up to make it appear the defense was doing something illegal.

I think the first illegal action there was the defensive guy coming around the right side with his arm. Tough to see from this angle. The second foul is the offensive player bringing his arm up.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think the first illegal action there was the defensive guy coming around the right side with his arm. Tough to see from this angle. The second foul is the offensive player bringing his arm up.

I see A2 grabbing B2's right arm and pulling it over. It's why it's so important to see the whole play.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The play that needs to be looked out for is the one at 4:00. JD wants us to call a foul on the defensive player but the offensive player grabbed the defensive player's arm then pulled it up to make it appear the defense was doing something illegal.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think the first illegal action there was the defensive guy coming around the right side with his arm. Tough to see from this angle. The second foul is the offensive player bringing his arm up.

In fact, we even have a term for it, and a clear example of the same thing at the 8:35 mark, "hook and hold".

[Camron Rust]

The play at 15:30 is just wrong....in the description. It is a block, but for reasons different than described.

The dialog says "No. 30 red, a secondary defender just outside of the restricted area, never initially establishes LGP by having both feet on the floor facing the opponent."

They then talk about jumping from position A to position B. In doing so, they freeze the action at position A with the defender having both feet on the floor facing the opponent. Huh?

It is still a block because the defender jumped towards the opponent, but it is ludicrous to suggest they player wasn't facing the opponent or didn't have two feet on the floor. The still shot they include right after that shows both of those things.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The play at 15:30 is just wrong....in the description. It is a block, but for reasons different than described.

The dialog says "No. 30 red, a secondary defender just outside of the restricted area, never initially establishes LGP by having both feet on the floor facing the opponent."

They then talk about jumping from position A to position B. In doing so, they freeze the action at position A with the defender having both feet on the floor facing the opponent. Huh?

It is still a block because the defender jumped towards the opponent, but it is ludicrous to suggest they player wasn't facing the opponent or didn't have two feet on the floor. The still shot they include right after that shows both of those things.

Exactly right, they should have instead mentioned that the defender was not in the path of the opponent. As you say the defender clearly has two feet on the floor facing the opponent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Exactly right, they should have instead mentioned that the defender was not in the path of the opponent. As you say the defender clearly has two feet on the floor facing the opponent.

Some would even argue that the player met the path requirement by being between the opponent and the basket. In this case, I'd agree.