NCAA rule changes: Rules Committee Recommendations

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1) A new goaltending article has been proposed stating that when the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.
“This change better defines and discerns the act of goaltending,” said Brad Jackson, chair of the men’s rules committee and head men’s basketball coach at Western Washington University.



2) The women’s committee approved its points of emphasis for the upcoming season. Contact on the ball handler/dribbler and by the ball handler/dribbler continues to be an area of focus due to its importance as it relates to freedom of movement which in turn affects offensive play and scoring.

1) Good change imo. It makes the call much easier and will cut down the squawking from the bench. Hopefully this one will filter down to the FED in the future.

2) I wonder how many supervisors will instruct their officials to ignore this one because it isn't in the rule book.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Good change imo. It makes the call much easier and will cut down the squawking from the bench. Hopefully this one will filter down to the FED in the future.

I don't think it's that great of a change. It changes one of the really fundamental principles of defense: that you can touch anything on the way up.

Is it horrible? No. But does it improve the game? No.

Plus, the rationale in red is complete BS. It doesn't define GT any better. It was perfectly clear under the previous rule. The real reason for the change is that it's what everybody already thinks it is. So instead of educating the coaches, players and media, they change it to what it's "supposed" to be, according to the people who have no idea about it.

It probably will make it easier to call in a few cases per season, but I don't think it really needed fixing.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think it's that great of a change. It changes one of the really fundamental principles of defense: that you can touch anything on the way up.

Is it horrible? No. But does it improve the game? No.

Plus, the rationale in red is complete BS. It doesn't define GT any better. It was perfectly clear under the previous rule. The real reason for the change is that it's what everybody already thinks it is. So instead of educating the coaches, players and media, they change it to what it's "supposed" to be, according to the people who have no idea about it.

It probably will make it easier to call in a few cases per season, but I don't think it really needed fixing.

100% agree.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think it's that great of a change. It changes one of the really fundamental principles of defense: that you can touch anything on the way up.

Is it horrible? No. But does it improve the game? No.

Plus, the rationale in red is complete BS. It doesn't define GT any better. It was perfectly clear under the previous rule. The real reason for the change is that it's what everybody already thinks it is. So instead of educating the coaches, players and media, they change it to what it's "supposed" to be, according to the people who have no idea about it.

It probably will make it easier to call in a few cases per season, but I don't think it really needed fixing.

As much as I hate to admit it I agree with you on all counts. It rarely happens, when it happens it's called correctly per the rule, when it's called per the rule broadcasters/coaches/fans all get excited.

Of course next season the coaches & players will be telling us every blocked layup hit the glass... so it's not gonna make our lives any easier, will it?

Okay let me see if I got this straight. Currently under FED ruleset the ball CAN hit the glass & still be legally blocked?
NCAA is proposing that once the ball contacts the glass, it should be considered on the way down & contact with ball is GT?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Okay let me see if I got this straight. Currently under FED ruleset the ball CAN hit the glass & still be legally blocked?
NCAA is proposing that once the ball contacts the glass, it should be considered on the way down & contact with ball is GT?

That's how I read it.

As a fan, I love it when players still are able to block the shot after it has hit the glass. I don't think they should remove the ability to make a fantastic athletic play.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

That's how I read it.

As a fan, I love it when players still are able to block the shot after it has hit the glass. I don't think they should remove the ability to make a fantastic athletic play.

True, but to make it cut & dry like the NCAA is proposing removes the judgement aspect & makes us follow the rule. I think that will eliminate discussion between coaches & players to officials about "what we saw".

By FED rules "Coach I had a real good look & the ball was in it's downward flight after it hit the glass".
Judgement call, which can still be disputed after your explanation.

Proposed NCAA rule "Coach the block came after it hit the glass... bucket".
Rule, leaves no room for discussion.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

True, but to make it cut & dry like the NCAA is proposing removes the judgement aspect & makes us follow the rule. I think that will eliminate discussion between coaches & players to officials about "what we saw".

By FED rules "Coach I had a real good look & the ball was in it's downward flight after it hit the glass".
Judgement call, which can still be disputed after your explanation.

Proposed NCAA rule "Coach the block came after it hit the glass... bucket".
Rule, leaves no room for discussion.

Nope, this rule is not going to change the approach by coaches and players when it comes to questioning officials judgment.

Sit: A defensive player blocks the ball on it upward flight and it has not hit the backboard. But, the block carries it to the backboard and its above the rim?

So what do you say to those individuals when that happens?

Answer: " Coach I had a real good look & the ball was on its upward flight; the block (happened) causing it to hit the backboard although it was above the rim".

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

True, but to make it cut & dry like the NCAA is proposing removes the judgement aspect & makes us follow the rule. I think that will eliminate discussion between coaches & players to officials about "what we saw".

By FED rules "Coach I had a real good look & the ball was in it's downward flight after it hit the glass".
Judgement call, which can still be disputed after your explanation.

Proposed NCAA rule "Coach the block came after it hit the glass... bucket".
Rule, leaves no room for discussion.

Hit the glass above the rim.
Is it the ball is completely above the rim, or just a bit above the rim (or square?), is the question.

And if a player hangs on the rim and decides not let go, is it just one T? Can he hang there all game? Go crazy kids!!

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think it's that great of a change. It changes one of the really fundamental principles of defense: that you can touch anything on the way up.

Is it horrible? No. But does it improve the game? No.

Plus, the rationale in red is complete BS. It doesn't define GT any better. It was perfectly clear under the previous rule. The real reason for the change is that it's what everybody already thinks it is. So instead of educating the coaches, players and media, they change it to what it's "supposed" to be, according to the people who have no idea about it.

It probably will make it easier to call in a few cases per season, but I don't think it really needed fixing.

See post #12 in the other thread. The rule is already in the book, is it not?!?

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...6&postcount=12

[Texas Aggie]

Proposed NCAA rule "Coach the block came after it hit the glass... bucket".
Rule, leaves no room for discussion.

Dream on.

"No, it didn't."

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Dream on.

Don't wake me!

"No, it didn't."

Rebuttals to my initial answers don't generally get a reply from me. I answered the question & now I'm going the other way. The interaction has ended & if coach persists then I hit him/her with "You made your point now let's move on".
Further discussion on the same subject, well, that's what Ts are for.

[Back In The Saddle]

Breakaway rims...are they talking about those rims you can pull down on and they just snap back that are currently installed on every basket in the world? And the NCAA is finally getting around to requiring them?

Or is it something else and I'm being dim witted (again)?

Edit: Okay, my bad. I looked it up and movable rings are not currently required in either HS or NCAA rules. I'd have bet $100 that they were.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Breakaway rims...

You dimwit.