NCAAM Potential Rules Changes
 

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It seems to me that it went over so well that there was a movement among coaches to get the rule rescinded mid-season.

As I recall, the rule was inspired by an NCAA tournament game (when alternating possession was fairly new) in which Stanford made a great defensive play while trying to come back in the final seconds, only to have the alternating possession go the other way, effectively ending the game. (Quite long back--I believe in the Mark Madsen era at Stanford.)

And yes, as I recall, the result was a mess--particularly where there was a defender grabbed the ball away (thereby instantly becoming the attacker) and the person who lost the ball (now the defender) forced a held ball. As I recall, the rule was one-and-done.

If we really hate the impact of alternating possession arrow in end game (which I do), a better path would be to either abolish it entirely or go back to jump balls in the final two minutes.

I see a bunch of gimmicky proposals. Glad I'm closing in on the end of my career.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I think these are just proposals that someone throws at the wall sometime to see if they stick.

I think many of these will never go over or change.

The lane thing has been discussed before and that is actually likely if not this year but in the future.

We will see.

Peace

Yes, There Will Be A Quiz Tomorrow ...
 

Today's history lesson - "The Lane".

From: Who’s Trent Tucker? And Why Is There A Basketball Rule Named After Him?

Leroy Edwards (Kentucky 1934-1935, NBL 1935-1949), a six foot, five inch All-American center for the Kentucky Wildcats, a prolific scorer in the days of low scoring games, is generally recognized as the player responsible for the implementation of the three second rule. Enacted in 1936, the rule was originally designed to limit rough play near the basket. The three second rule states that an offensive player cannot remain in an opponent’s free throw lane area for more than three consecutive seconds while his team has the ball in the frontcourt. A game central to this rule's introduction was that between Coach Adolph Rupp’s University of Kentucky Wildcats, and the New York University Violets, held in Madison Square Garden on January 5, 1935, a game that was especially rough. While the three second rule was originally adopted to reduce roughness between big men in the free throw lane area, it is now used to prevent tall offensive players from gaining an advantage by waiting close to the basket. The NFHS adopted the three second rule in 1941.

George Mikan (DePaul 1942-1946, NBA 1946-1956), was a six foot, ten inch All-American center for the DePaul Blue Demons, ... Mikan’s dominating play in the NBA also led to a rule change. Due to the narrowness of the free throw lane, imposing centers such as Mikan dominated the lane, scoring at will. The NBA, at the onset of the 1951–52 season, widened the free throw lane from six feet to twelve feet, a change known as the “Mikan Rule”, forcing Mikan to start farther from the basket to give other players a chance.

Bill Russell (San Francisco 1953-1956, NBA 1956-1969), the six foot, ten inch All-American center for the San Francisco Dons, was one of the most dominant basketball players of his time. Russell was so dominant in the 1955 NCAA tournament that rule changes were enacted in college basketball to prevent a tall player such as Russell from gaining an advantage. In 1956, the NCAA widened the lane from six feet to twelve feet to make it more difficult for tall players to dominate the lane. The NFHS changed to a twelve foot lane in 1957 ...

Wilt Chamberlain (Kansas 1956-1958, NBA 1959-1973), the seven foot, one inch, 275 pound All-American Kansas Jayhawks center’s impact on the game of basketball was reflected in the fact that he was directly responsible for several rule changes ... Chamberlain is the reason why the lane in the NBA is sixteen feet wide, forcing him to start farther from the basket. It was twelve feet wide when Chamberlain entered the league in 1959 and he won both Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player honors by setting up shop in the low post, using his strength to lean in on opponents and lay the ball in the basket with his soft finger roll. After five years of watching Chamberlain score virtually at will, the NBA added four feet to the width of the lane in the 1964-65 season to make it a little tougher on him.

Do we really need a history lesson on rules that were done over 50 years ago as it relates to today? Was anyone in the complete dark about these things?

Peace

Screenshots Of A Survey ...
 

You may be correct. These are only based on screenshots of a survey, probably similar to what the NFHS does in partnership with the various state athletic associations and their officials and possibly coaches.

It's, most likely, very early in the vetting process.

A lot can happen between the survey, a narrowing down of the rule change proposals based on the survey results, the final agenda on the table of the rule committee, and the final decisions of the rule committee.

Guardians Of The Game ...
 

Maybe I live in a cave, but I never heard of Leroy Edwards, or the New York University Violets, before I wrote this article, and I've been a basketball player, coach, official, or fan for over fifty-five years.

Players like Edwards, and many others had a major impact on the basketball rules that we all use and take for granted in today's game, and they deserve some type recognition and credit.

Where better to give them a little recognition other than on a basketball officiating website?

Again why do we need to know all of this when no one asked? Good information if we care, but I think we should talk about if these are good proposals or why they should not see the light of day. The players involved several generations ago are not helping us with rules discussion that might be changed or just proposed for this coming year.

Peace

Evolution ...
 

Players evolve. The game evolves. Rules evolve.

I'm sure that there is at least one Forum member (or lurker) that found this interesting. I did when I originally researched it.

I've left plenty of room in this thread for those who wish to discuss these NCAA rule change proposals.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.K...=0&w=300&h=300

Recognition And Credit ...
 

Again, because players like Edwards, and many others had a major impact on the basketball rules that we all use and take for granted in today's game, and they deserve some type recognition and credit.

One does not need to know this, and there will not be a quiz.

Again more off-topic mess that has nothing to do with the topic. Thanks. This is what frustrates so many and do not get why it is allowed to continue.

Peace

Define Off Topic ...
 

The topic is rule changes. My post was regarding the history of one of the suggested rule changes (width of the lane) that included rationales. How can that have "nothing to do with the topic"?

And just what exactly is the harm done? I've left plenty of room in this thread (is there actually a limit) for those who wish to discuss these NCAA rule change proposals.

Last time I was attacked for off topic posts I received several private messages or emails from Forum members fully supporting me in my attempts to generate something on the Forum more than just simple, "dry", sometimes boring interpretations, and citing of rules, and definitions.

But you certainly have a valid point, not too far out in left field. To each his own, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I politely and respectfully disagree with said opinion.

Extra Stuff ...
 

Looking back, I could have done better job of editing out some of the "extra stuff".

Careless. Impatient. Hurried.

Fixed it.

Sorry (I'm apologizing for the original post, not the final more edited version). Thanks for the reminder to be a better Forum member.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1042854

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.w...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

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.

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.

Whippersnappers ...
 

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

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.).

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.h...=0&w=237&h=170

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.

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.

Interesting, Very Interesting ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=222&h=172

Followup Article ...
 

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

Perverse To Good Basketball ???
 

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.

Good Defense ...
 

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).

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

Economics 101 ...
 

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

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.c...=0&w=269&h=173

For the record that came from JD Collins directly as to the issues with going quarters. It is not just my opinion on the matter. He has even stated where Men's basketball is different than Women's basketball from a financial standpoint so I want to make clear I am not talking out of turn here. Heard him say this stuff on more than one occasion.

Peace

There's No I In Team ...
 

Yes, there is something worse, seeing one on one isolation basketball, something that turned me off to NBA basketball many, many years ago (I was a big fan back in ancient times). NBA basketball was never better than those great Boston Celtics and New York Knicks teams of the 1970's (it has gotten slightly better the past few years).

Basketball is a team sport. Always was, always will be.

Yes, I'm well aware that of all the major team sports (basketball, football, baseball, hockey, soccer), some basketball teams may be successful in the long term (season) based on the outstanding individual skills and impact of a single player (one of only five on the floor), but it's still a team game. Team offense. Team defense. Teamwork.