NCAAM Potential Rules Changes

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Altor

Didn't they try the "held ball goes to the defense" rule several years ago?

It seems to me that it went over so well that there was a movement among coaches to get the rule rescinded mid-season.

I remember that rule being used either as an actual change or experimentally in the NCAA-M rules about 20+ years ago. In theory, it was a good idea, but it only worked when team control existed. When A1 and B1 created a held ball situation on a rebound, for example, there was no team control to determine who got the ball, so those instances still had to use the AP arrow. Needless to say, the rule was gone for the following season.


I agree the rest of these rules seem gimmicky. I also think these proposals are geared more towards preparing NCAA Division 1 athletes for pro ball than anything else.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I remember that rule being used either as an actual change or experimentally in the NCAA-M rules about 20+ years ago. In theory, it was a good idea, but it only worked when team control existed. When A1 and B1 created a held ball situation on a rebound, for example, there was no team control to determine who got the ball, so those instances still had to use the AP arrow. Needless to say, the rule was gone for the following season.


I agree the rest of these rules seem gimmicky. I also think these proposals are geared more towards preparing NCAA Division 1 athletes for pro ball than anything else.

It was a mess. The problem was deciding who got control "first" on a loose ball. It was essentially a coin toss a lot of the time. It was an unmitigated disaster ...almost as bad as requiring LGP on upward motion was.

[Altor]

Rather than the proposed rule change, it would make things easier to change the rule to give the held ball to the team that's in their backcourt. It probably gives it to the team intended by the proposed rule 90% of the time, and keeps officials from having to adjudicate who was in possession in that split second before the held ball.

There would have to be some clarifications issued regarding held balls where players were on either side of mid-court. But, I'd guess those plays are few and far between.

[ilyazhito]

Why not just go back to jump balls and avoid this mess? Jumpers can't encroach onto the other jumper's side of the circle, non-jumpers have to give space to other non-jumpers, and can leave but not come onto the circle. It'll spice games up by having a player actually contest possession, and not have possession be random.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why not just go back to jump balls and avoid this mess?

Why is Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. posting under ilyazhito's username?

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Jumpers can't encroach onto the other jumper's side of the circle, non-jumpers have to give space to other non-jumpers, and can leave but not come onto the circle.

You're conveniently leaving out a lot of of the jump ball rules. Whippersnapper officials should be thankful that only one (usually) jump ball happens in modern basketball game (unlike ancient times). Luckily these anachronistic microbursts of mayhem are over so quickly that players, coaches, fans (and some officials) are unaware that any illegal activity (often difficult to spot in a two person game) has occurred (except for the most blatant violations: jumper touching ball on way up, jumper touching ball three times, jumper catching ball, etc.).

[ilyazhito]

I only gave a few examples because I didn't want to spend an entire post listing out all of the possible jump ball rules. My point was that a jump ball would make possessions valuable and not random the way that the alternating possession arrow or giving the ball to the defense does. Thee are also situations with uncertain possession that cannot be resolved by giving the ball to the defense (e.g. shot lodged between the rim and backboard) because there is no team in control, and hence no defense. A jump ball will be able to resolve those situations.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I only gave a few examples because I didn't want to spend an entire post listing out all of the possible jump ball rules. My point was that a jump ball would make possessions valuable and not random the way that the alternating possession arrow or giving the ball to the defense does. Thee are also situations with uncertain possession that cannot be resolved by giving the ball to the defense (e.g. shot lodged between the rim and backboard) because there is no team in control, and hence no defense. A jump ball will be able to resolve those situations.

Just want to point out that the AP is not the least bit random. It is entirely deterministic. You know what the next one will be and the one after that and so on. For that matter, giving the ball to the defense isn't at all random either when there is a defense. Actually having a jump ball is the one that is largely random.

[bob jenkins]

I said this the last time this came up: The offense's job is to hold on to the ball. The defense's job is to get the ball. They both failed. So, take turns.

One change I could support is to let the team with the arrow defer. The team without the arrow would inbound, and the arrow would remain unchanged.

You want to have a better chance to get the ball with 15 seconds left? Give the ball to the other team with four minutes left.

You don't want to have to go 84 feet to score with 2 seconds left in the first half? Give the other team a chance to score from their front court.

Etc.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

One change I could support is to let the team with the arrow defer. The team without the arrow would inbound, and the arrow would remain unchanged. You want to have a better chance to get the ball with 15 seconds left? Give the ball to the other team with four minutes left. You don't want to have to go 84 feet to score with 2 seconds left in the first half? Give the other team a chance to score from their front court.

The NCAA is already considering permitting a team to decline free throws, so they could consider bob jenkins's creative idea to permit a team to decline (pass on and keep) the arrow.

[BillyMac]

https://news.yahoo.com/why-won-t-nca...110000372.html

[JRutledge]

More dumb media commentary about rules. Then do not watch. The tournament makes over a Billion dollars a year. Someone is watching a lot.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

More dumb media commentary about rules.

Charging Calls Drawn By Off-The-Ball And/Or Help-Side Defenders

Off-the-ball and/or help-side defenders drawing charging calls are ruining basketball. Is there anything worse than seeing an offensive player make an athletic move to beat his primary defender, head toward the basket poised to do something dramatic, only to be robbed of the play’s crescendo because another defender slid in front of the driver?

While “sacrificing one’s body” to step in front of an on-coming dunker may reflect commitment to one’s team, it is not really “a basketball play.” Stealing the ball, blocking or otherwise contesting the shot should be a help-side defender’s only options.

The charge drawn by the off-the-ball defender punishes an offensive player for taking the initiative. It bails out the primary defender who has been beaten. In other words, the incentives created are perverse to good basketball.

This is not to suggest there should be no offensive fouls called. A player with the ball should not be able to lower his shoulder and ram through his defender like Benny Snell bulling through the line on third-and-short.

What needs to be eliminated entirely, though, is off-the-ball and/or help-side defenders being rewarded for impeding drivers by drawing charges. To do that, one could expand the restricted zone, the area under the goal in which defenders are presently not allowed to draw charges, to encompass the entire lane.

Or perhaps the rule is changed to say a charge can only be drawn by an offensive player’s primary defender and it is then left to the discretion of game officials to enforce that.

I know that you college guys, with your restricted zones (I do realize that there is a difference between off-the-ball defenders, help-side defenders, secondary defenders, and primary defenders), may agree with the writer, and disagree with me, but "taking charges" has been an accepted defensive strategy in the game of basketball for a very long time.

NFHS 4-37-3: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

In my opinion, drawing charges is a real basketball play, is not ruining basketball, and is not perverse to good basketball.

It's been around for a very long time, and is a very exciting part of the game.

Listen to the fans excitedly roar after one of their players "takes a charge".

Watch the excitement of the defender's teammates as they peel him off the floor.

And watch the defender, no matter how badly is tailbone hurts, bounce right back, showing all smiles, and hustling to his new offensive position.

Dollars to doughnuts, I bet that this writer gets literally orgasmic at dunk contests.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off-the-ball and/or help-side defenders drawing charging calls are ruining basketball. Is there anything worse than seeing an offensive player make an athletic move to beat his primary defender, head toward the basket poised to do something dramatic, only to be robbed of the play’s crescendo because another defender slid in front of the driver?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... not really “a basketball play".

The first year my youngest daughter played any type of organized basketball, she played in the town's recreation league. Like many recreation leagues, this league had a "no zone, only man to man defense" rule, likely to encourage kids to learn how to play good fundamental man to man defense.

While a basketball beginner, and not a very good basketball player, my daughter was very "sports smart", athletically fast, and fairly tall for her age (later becoming a three sport athlete).

On defense, when a teammate would "lose" her man, my daughter would instinctively (never taught or coached) slide over to defend the basket (she didn't know it at the time, but she was providing "weak side help defense"). Opposing coaches would complain, officials (high school players earning a few bucks on weekends) would listen, and my daughter was constantly whistled for playing a zone defense ("stay with your man").

Always two simultaneous games on "side baskets" in a small middle school gym with no marked lanes on these "side baskets", so no free throws. With little skill, but by using her speed, height, and intelligence, my daughter had lots of chances to score, but was constantly fouled "in the act", with no free throws to reward her effort.

She (as did I) liked her recreation league coach (a fellow basketball official), and liked her recreation league teammates, but the next year she and I both decided that she would tryout for (and play) travel basketball ... "real" basketball.

And "real' basketball always includes weak side help defense (and taking charges).

[JRutledge]

I do not think coaches are going to want to take away the ability to defend plays near the basket in that way this fool described. That is clearly a fan talking and not thinking of how you would counter that action. Coaches want to be able to defend actions too. If they do not want charges, pass the ball or pull up and shoot. Not very difficult.

Also when he stated the issue with the rule possibly being brought in about resetting the fouls and being confusing, that shows how little he even understands the business side of the game. Men's basketball is not going to quarters because it takes away a possible TV timeout. That is the reason quarters is never advocated for. Women's basketball does not make money. They do not need the extra timeout. Men's basketball does make money, so you add that quarter break you are changing their sponsorship structure or have to change other things to accommodate. It is really that simple and would not be a hard rule to deal with honestly. Other rules would have bigger issues, but some talking head thinks he knows the difference or issues.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Men's basketball is not going to quarters because it takes away a possible TV timeout. That is the reason quarters is never advocated for. Women's basketball does not make money. They do not need the extra timeout. Men's basketball does make money, so you add that quarter break you are changing their sponsorship structure or have to change other things to accommodate.

I always wondered about the quarter/half gender issue in college basketball. Thanks for the explanation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... in that way this fool described.