NCAA rule changes: Rules Committee Recommendations

[Nevadaref]

Basketball rules committee targets unsportsmanlike technical fouls

May 13, 2008

The NCAA News

The NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee at its meeting this week in Indianapolis made recommendations to reorganize the penalties for technical fouls, with the unsportsmanlike variety carrying the most severe consequences. All recommendations made the men’s and women’s basketball rules committees are subject to approval by the Playing Rules and Oversight Panel, which meets June 5 via teleconference. Penalties for unsportsmanlike technical fouls (for example, swearing, taunting) will still consist of two free-throws for the opposing team. The player receiving the technical will also be charged with a personal foul and his team will be assessed a team foul. Where the reorganization comes in is the indirect technical fouls such as hanging on the rim and slapping the backboard. These violations will result only in the player being assessed a technical and the opposing team receiving two foul shots. No personal or team fouls will be assessed. “We want to organize this better so that it is clear for the coaches, players and officials,” said Ed Bilik, the NCAA secretary rules-editor for men’s basketball. “We don’t think if you put your put your hand on the (rim) or the backboard to gain an advantage that you should be disqualified for that. But if you swear at an official or taunt or bait an opponent, that’s unsportsmanlike and will count toward your disqualification.” The men’s rules committee also made a recommendation regarding goaltending. When the ball hits the backboard above the rim and is touched by a defender, it should be called a goaltending violation. Previously, officials had to judge whether the ball was on a downward flight after hitting the backboard before a goaltending violation could be called. The new recommendation removes the judgment on the downward flight of the ball for the officials. Rules recommendations that affect both the men’s and women’s game include: Home teams being required to wear light-colored uniforms. Until now, it was just suggested that home teams wear the lighter-colored uniform. All institutions will be required to have breakaway rims installed by the 2009-10 season. Since the men’s three-point line is moving back a foot to 20 feet, nine inches, and the women’s line is remaining at 19-9, the recommendation is for all courts to have the two three-point lines be contrasting colors. Points of emphasis for women’s officials in 2008-09 are traveling violations, hand-checking the player dribbling the ball and sportsmanship. In the men’s game, officials will emphasize rough play away from the ball, such as impeding cutters and contact on screens. Palming violations will also be a point of emphasis.

[Nevadaref]

NCAA News Release
Basketball Rules Committee Proposes Minor Changes at Annual Meeting
For Immediate Release Tuesday, May 13, 2008	Contact(s) Leslie Danehy Associate Director of Playing Rules Administration
INDIANAPOLIS---A year ago, a new three-point line dominated discussions at the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules Committee meetings. This year, the committee’s meetings produced relatively few changes, which committee leaders view as a positive step for the game overall. “Our game and our rules are in really great shape,” said Ronda Seagraves, chair of the women’s rules committee and associate athletic director at Southwestern University (Texas). “We entertained approximately 50 rules proposals, and in the end only approved minor changes to the rules book.” The committees formed a joint subcommittee with representatives from Divisions I, II and III to review the uniform rule. Both committees recommended clarifying the rule regarding home and away uniform colors. The committees’ recommendation requires home teams to wear light uniforms and away teams to wear dark uniforms. This rule is alterable by mutual consent of the competing institutions. Previously, the rule recommended, rather than requiring, that light uniforms be worn by the home team and dark uniforms be worn by the away team. All proposals made by the committees are not final until approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which will meet by conference call June 5. 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. The men’s committee made the recommendation to reorganize the technical foul rule reinforcing its concern for unsportsmanlike acts that may occur during the game. “The restricted area arc and the widening of the lane were dimensional changes that were considered and discussed. However, our committee decided to continue to observe and study the effects these dimensional changes may have on our game,” said Jackson. The women’s committee approved its points of emphasis for the upcoming season. Sportsmanship, traveling and contact on and by the ball handler/dribbler are the areas the committee will direct women’s officials to pay particular attention to next season. The focus of sportsmanship will be on player behavior, specifically, activity after the whistle blows. Traveling remains a point of emphasis because of the advantage gained by the ball handler. 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. A concern of the men’s committee is the illegal contact occurring at the basket area, especially the charge, block and player control fouls. Also, the committee believes that rough play and illegal contact need to be addressed throughout the game, and special emphasis is being directed toward illegal contact in screening situations. As another point of emphasis, the men’s committee contends that palming is an indefensible act in which the dribbler gains a sizable advantage. Finally, although the rules committee believes that bench decorum and compliance with coaching box restriction rules improved in the 2007-08 season, this area will continue to be a point of emphasis for 2008-09. For the 2009-10 season, movable (or breakaway) rings will be required for all divisions.

[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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where the reorganization comes in is the indirect technical fouls such as hanging on the rim and slapping the backboard. These violations will result only in the player being assessed a technical and the opposing team receiving two foul shots. No personal or team fouls will be assessed

This could get very interesting during blowouts when players, whose team is up by 30, knows there is very little pentalty for a little showboating. Should we trust the coaches will keep it in check?

[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".

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by truerookie

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".

Agree, the new rule will change nothing about how these calls are argued by the players & coaches.

Cool, I understand that too. Just saying I like starting my response with "Coach by rule" instead of "Coach I got a good look".
Rule vs Judgement...

Under the new proposal if it hits the glass, then the response is simple IMO, by rule... GT

[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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Cool, I understand that too. Just saying I like starting my response with "Coach by rule" instead of "Coach I got a good look".
Rule vs Judgement...

Under the new proposal if it hits the glass, then the response is simple IMO, by rule... GT

"Coach, by rule if the ball is still on the way up, it's legal, even if the ball has hit the backboard."

The rule changes the judgment point, but doesn't affect how to deal with the coach.

The problems are that it's probably easier to tell which happened on the replay, and the coach has an "objective" thing to look for, so I'd expect more arguments, nad more "missed calls" from the talking heads.