NCAA-M Summer Rules Training Video

[SC Official]

So many dumb changes. Why not keep the top of the key throw in spot going to the baseline like it has for years? Why have to change the Team Control rule? Why give us a Loose Ball Foul but no new signal for it? So dumb. The committee is just playing with the rules at this point, not sure they have a plan where they want to end up.

And while these changes may be great for D1, it's only confusing things more for officials like myself at the lower levels who still work HS and NCAA.

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...

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.

I agree with you on this one. I've had many occasions where my partners don't want to take the time to properly adjudicate such plays and default to free throws.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why can't I see this embedded video on my computer? I was able to see JRutledge's videos during the NCAA tournament. Am I missing something (a program)?

If I right click on the video and go to properties can copy and paste the URL and get the video that way, but why can't I just click on the video like I was able to do in the past?

Do I need to turn something on that may have inadvertently been turned off?

I just checked, same problem on my desktop and on my laptop.

It works on Google Chrome but not on Internet Explorer (my preferred browser).

What's the story?

[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.