NCAA Purposed changes (2023-2024)
 

Men's Purposed Changes Listed

Changes to the block-charge timing were the big one. But to me just moved the can down the road because you still have to decide if the line is met at a certain point. Makes the play IMO harder.

The other changes I am not totally in love with like like all numbers being used from 0-99.

I do not see what they mean by if the ball hits the rim the offense gets a new 20 if they retain the ball. Is that not already the case?

Not sure I am in love with nonstudent people being said to be peacemakers. That could be confusing if it is not a coach, but again I guess we never know who is an actual coach or trainer sometimes.

The timeout situation never was much of an issue. Never felt they should have changed that in the first place.

The Flagrant foul thing is not really much of an issue IMO. I think I have called at most 2 on a player (even in a high school game) on the same player. And if it they do something and puts them on notice, the next one is easier to call. But OK, if they feel they need this change.

But all of this is in a rules change year. So they had to do something. :D

Peace

Thank You ...
 

Thanks JRutledge.

While I'm strictly a high school official, I do have a curious, passing interest in NCAA rules, especially when they may impact high school coaches confusing NCAA rules with dissimilar NHHS rules.

Here is the link to the women's proposal:
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/5/5/m...g-penalty.aspx

Somewhat surprised I didn't see anything on different rules for different divisions -- there was significant discussion on this. Maybe that comes in the next step.

Are NCAA refs having a hard time with adjudicating block /charge actions?

As I read the changes, I think they are saying the officials (generally) correctly ruled "charge" on plays, but the stakeholders didn't want so many charges -- they wanted more blocks. So, make the defender get set earlier.

As Bob said, it's about what coaches want. Block/charge plays are really not that difficult to officiate. Coaches simply want more blocks called.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Asking, current rule? When offense retains the ball in the backcourt (reset to 30) v frontcourt(reset to 20) New rule = 20 seconds no matter what.

The current NCAA-M rule only resets the shot clock to 20 on a try that hits the rim. Now any ball that hits the rim (i.e. an errant pass) and stays with the offense will cause a reset to 20. Really stupid that the offense can get a new 20 if they throw a bad alley-oop late in the shot clock, but oh well…

The block/charge thing is stupid. All because Bilas and John Adams have been running their mouths about too many player control fouls. Speaking of which, why doesn’t NCAA-M get on board and just call PC and TC fouls “offensive fouls”?

Saw the women’s changes coming after the NCG, particularly the Class A/B technicals after the Clark T.

No. There are people in the game that do not understand the rule. And all this did was go back to something that was earlier when they use to consider the "upward motion" which caused an issue then too. Honestly, this is going to create more inconsistency and debates over what took place.

Peace

Then they will complain when they get blocks that should not be blocked. Because that timing is not really going to change the reality that players set up and waiting on the ball handler and getting run over.

Peace

Degree Of Difficulty ...
 

In my high school games, I agree, just concentrate on the feet of the defender.

It may not always be easy for me, but it's not my most difficult call.

Many of my high school colleagues say that block/charge plays are the most difficult for them.

While that may be true for those individuals, for me, travels are the most difficult calls.

Travels at the start of a dribble are easy for me, it's the travels at the end of a dribble before a try that are the most difficult for me.

But with the "purposed" change, you wouldn't have to rule on whether it was a try. And it's not like the last team to control the ball gains an advantage by its having hit the rim; that pretty well randomizes the rebound, so why have time on the shot clock continue? If they can work passes off the rim, that's a great skill that should be rewarded!

That’s funny!

The article says that if the offense retains the ball in the FC. So not sure the BC would be any different. I am just trying to figure out that when we get the ball in the FC it is not set to 20 after the ball hits the rim. The only situation I can think of is if the defense gets the ball first and then there is a quick steal.

This one will have to be explained.

Peace

Unless they're talking about passes or tipped balls that hit the rim.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Or if it happens above 20 seconds the shot clock gets reset to 20.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What about an IW (during the rebound and the arrow favors the shooting team)? In NCAAW that used to be reset to 30 -- but was changed to 20 in the last rules cycle.

It's like the FED changes -- these are just descriptions of the changes, not the changes themselves -- and, as such, the descriptions are missing some specificity. More (perhaps all) will be clarified when the rule is adopted and published.

The wording of the Guarding and Screening Rules for boys'/girls high school and men's college have been same for well over 65 years. The wording of the Guarding Rule with respect to Obtaining (NFHS/NCAA Women's)/Establishing (NCAA Men's) is based upon two simple requirements: 1) The more important of the two: An Offensive Player must expect to be Guarded from the instant he/she gains Control of the Ball, which means that the concept of a Secondary Defender does not exist (Of course how the Closely Guarded Rule is adjudicated in NFHS is different from NCAA Men's/Women's even though the wording of the Rule is the same in all three Rules Codes, but that is a discussion for another time.); and 2) Guarding Rule applies to every square inch of the court when there is Team Control by Team A.

The first problem is that Players, Coaches, spectators, and Talking Knuckleheads (with Jay Bilas being the leading one) do not understand these two simple requirements. (It should be noted that the Guarding Rule is not in effect when neither Team has Control of the Ball, but that concept is part of my $100 seminar on Guarding and Screening, 🤣!)

The second, and more important, problem is that the three Rules Committees are dominated by members who are administrators and coaches [The 2022-23 NFHS Basketball Rules Committee consists of seven administrator/coaches (none of whom have ever officiated basketball), four basketball officials, and one administrator who was a long time basketball officials: That is seven people out of twelve that have neither officiating experience nor experience in the Rules of Basketball.] who do not have an understanding of why a current Rule is written as it is.

The NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee adopted a change to the Guarding Rule as it pertained to LGP for the 2013-14 that was rescinded by mid-season because it was unworkable and did not conform to the two requirements that I have previously given. This recommendation for the 2023-24 school year is just as absurd as the one that was adopted in 2013-14 and is just as unworkable as the one in 2013-14 because it does not conform to the two requirements that I have previously given.

MTD, Sr.

That is it, they just want a game where it is harder to play defense legally and will push up scores. Anyone ready for 150 point games all the time?