NCAA approves new basketball rule

5/6/2002 (The Associated Press)

INDIANAPOLIS - The NCAA approved a basketball rule eliminating free throws during a bonus situation when a foul is committed by the team with the ball.
It was tried as an experiment in men's basketball last season and will be made permanent for men and women next season, the NCAA rules committees decided at their annual meeting last week in Palm Harbor, Fla.

"We discussed at length many items that were submitted to us, but for the most part we didn't change things much because we thought the rules were in good shape," Art Hyland, chairman of the men's committee and coordinator of officiating for the Big East Conference, said Monday.

Now, when a foul is committed by a player on the team with the ball, instead of shooting free throws, play will be restarted with the other team given possession. The change makes the penalty for such fouls during the bonus the same as for fouls committed by the player with the ball.

Another change for men's basketball includes a requirement that the two lane spaces closest to the free-throw shooter remain vacant to reduce the chance of distracting the shooter.









Report a Problem | Contact
© Copyright 1999-2001 NCAA®. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of Use. Developed by Expidant.

Greaaaaaaaaat . . .

I can see my first game of the season at book, calling for a 1-and-1 and forcing a (hopefully) correctable error!

I must be going senile, the NCAA just recycled how we use to handle these fouls over 20 years ago per NBCOUSAC rules. The change was made in either 77-78 or 78-79, and it is too late to get out the rule books to look it up.

It seems to me that a much more equitable solution would be to shoot all offensive fouls after the bonus, including PC fouls, instead of eliminating all shots on offensive fouls.

As for the lane spaces, I like the NBA rule. Again, it seems equitable to me, and I think that should be an underlying factor in rules theory.

Anything we can do to eliminate shooting FTs, I'm all for! :)

What I like about this rule is that I would have a tendency to loose the shooter on these type of plays. (off ball screens, etc.) I guess I should just pay attention more.:)

So if A1 is dribbling and A2 pushes B2: foul on A2, no FTs, possession to Team B.

But what if A1 is dribbling and B1 knocks it away so that A1 no longer has player control? Then A2 fouls B2 while trying to recover the loose ball. Does B2 get FTs? There's no player control, but there's still team control, right? So it seems like according to the new rule, we wouldn't shoot FTs. What does it mean for "the offense to have the ball"? Team control, or player control? Or doesn't it matter?

I'm just trying to get clear on exactly when FTs will not be shot.

I agree, by the way, that if the NCAA wanted to be consistent, they would shoot FTs on all fouls, even player control. That is a very strange exception. But for practical purposes, I like not shooting on any offensive foul.

Chuck

"But what if A1 is dribbling and B1 knocks it away so that A1 no longer has player control? Then A2 fouls B2 while trying to recover the loose ball. Does B2 get FTs? There's no player control, but there's still team control, right? So it seems like according to the new rule, we wouldn't shoot FTs. What does it mean for "the offense to have the ball"? Team control, or player control? Or doesn't it matter?"

Chuck,
This would be similar to a "loose ball foul."

Section XVII-(NBA RULE BOOK)
"Team Control"
A team is in control when a player is holding, dribbling or passing the ball. Team control ends when the defensive team deflects the ball or there is a field goal attempt.

According to this, there is no team control in this situation. If you're in the penalty, (bonus) Shoot the free-throws.
This would be different if A1 fumbles the ball, then holds B1 back while trying to re-gain possession. This would be an offensive foul, as team control never ended.
Drake

Right, Drake. That's the NBA interpretation: a defensive bat ends team control. I already knew that, which is why I asked the question. Because in NCAA and NF, I think that team control remains in that situation. Which means, technically, that the offense still "has the ball" (since they have control). Hence my confusion. Do we shoot the bonus in that situation? Or do we treat it as the NBA "loose ball"; i.e., no team control?

Chuck

Looks like a rule clarification/change may be needed then?

Could this be a "held ball goes to the defense" quagmire? :)

My bet is that we will get an official interp some time in September after all the summer camps try using this new rule and encounter this problem...also, my bet is that the Men's and Women's interps will be different...should be fun!!

I really think it is rather simple.
Change the wording to reflect the NBA interp.
If the defense knocks the ball loose, no team control.
The only other problem is recognizing the foul when it happens as an offensive foul, not just a "loose ball type foul." This change also makes it so that a ball knocked loose by the defense which is then touched last by an offensive player, can be recovered by the offense in the backcourt with no violation. Sweet!:cool:

You're right - that would be simple...but then, when has either the Fed or the NCAA been worried about the "simple" answer...they will end up with different interps for men and women and it will be very confusing...

My own guess is that they will word it so that the rule will only be in effect while there is player control. That way you still shoot the bonus when there's a scramble for a loose ball, which seems right to me, but we don't have to change the definition of when team control ends.

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 8th, 2002 at 01:21 PM]

Way back in ancient times if a player from the team who had control of the ball committed the foul it was a team control foul and a player control foul was also a team control foul. As long is there is team control, no free throws would be shot. It is my educated guess that somebody has gotten out an old rule book and that is the wording the will be used.

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, Mark, let me go back to the play I mentioned earlier and see what you think:

A1 is dribbling the ball (team control and player control). B1 bats the ball away from A1 (team control, but no player control). A2 fouls B2 while trying to recover the loose ball.

In that situation, according to what I think you're saying, B2 would NOT shoot any FTs, just awarded possession b/c Team A still was in control. Is that correct? If it is, then I don't like it. I can live with it, but I don't like it.

Chuck

new NCAA rule
 

What do we do with fouls on OOB throw in situations. Ai inbounds but A2 illegally picks B2. Or B1 holds A2. The inbounder A1 does not have player or team control.

Chuck, you are correct.

As far as living with it or living without it. When I started officiating the new NCAA rule was the law of the land for both NBCOUSAC (NFHS/NCAA Men's) and NAGWS (which modeled its rules code after FIBA) and then NBCOUSAC changed to what has been in the NFHS/NCAA (both men's and women's) for years now. I really did not care one way or another about either way the rule is or was written.

Re: new NCAA rule
 

For this situation, nothing has changed. Just handle the play as you have in the past because there is no team control during a throw-in.

My guess is that the actual rule change (i.e., what's in the book, not in the press release) and the "changes/updates" section will cover most of these situations.

Re: Re: new NCAA rule
 

So we would shoot the bonus. But it seems clear in this case that the "offensive" player committed the foul. See the problem? I agree with you, Mark. This would be handled the same as always. But I can see finnref's confusion.

Chuck

This rule change is nothing for the young guys to get worried about. Just remember your definitions for player and team control and when those situations cease to exist. We old geezers were able to do it over twenty years ago, and there really is nothing to worry about.

I'm not worried. But I'm just unclear as to exactly how the rule will be interpreted. My hope is that we'll still shoot the bonus if there's a foul during a scramble for a loose ball; b/c that's not what we typically think of as an "offensive foul". Player control fouls and illegal screens, no shots; I love it. But if nobody has control of the ball, I think we should still shoot it. Just my opinion.

Chuck

Chuck, please, do not use the term "offensive foul" when refering to NFHS/NCAA rules. There is no such animal in NFHS/NCAA rules. When a Player A1 commits a personal foul, there can only be ball conditions: 1) Team A has control of the ball; 2) Team B has control of the ball; or 3) neither Team A or Team B has control of the ball.

As I have said in a previous thread - this is definitely one area that is handled much more clearly and easier (IMHO)in FIBA rules. To clarify:

Any common foul committed by a player whose team is in possession does not result in free throws, regardless of the number of team fouls committed.

I'm not sure I understand why people are trying to over complicate an issue which I think is a pretty straight forward rule.

As an aside - many people I know have commented on how FIBA rules are getting closer to NBA/NFHS/NCAA (aka US rules). It is interesting to see the opposite also occurring (although I am sure that Mark D will point out that the US is simply regressing to an old rule!). Personally I feel that in 5 to 10 years the rules will basically be the same - probably the main difference will be the shape of the key - and in this case I prefer the FIBA model :)

Just because a rule may be "clear and easier" doesn't make it equitable. Since a foul committed by an offensive player is caused by that player initiating illegal contact, it should be penalized just the same as when a defensive player initiates illegal contact. If the defense shoots free throws when in the bonus, so should the offense.

As for the shape of the key, I really cannot stand that crapazoid. :confused:

I much rather prefer the rectaltangle. :p

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Chuck, please, do not use the term "offensive foul" when refering to NFHS/NCAA rules. There is no such animal in NFHS/NCAA rules.

I know that Mark. That's why I used the quotation marks: "offensive foul", to indicate that it is so-called. My point remains the same. We typically think of fouls committed by the offense (is that better?) as illegal screens and PC fouls. Since a scramble for a loose ball doesn't fit into either of those categories, I would hope that it would also not be covered by the new rule.

Does that smooth those ruffled semantic feathers? ;)

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

I much rather prefer the rectaltangle. :p

After reading TH's post about playing a different game "Down Under", I sure hope the 'rectaltangle' never makes its way into Australian Rules Basketball!!!!!

Chuck

Oz, I'm not at all familiar with FIBA rules, but your description doesn't really seem any clearer than what we've been discussing. How does FIBA define a team as being "in possession"? Does that mean team control, or does it mean a player on the offensive team has possession by holding or dribbling the ball? That can make a difference on a loose ball scramble. What would you do under the FIBA rules in the play I described in an earlier post?

Chuck

Chuck,

The FIBA definition of team and player control is exactly the same as the NFHS/NCAA definition.

I agree this wont be that difficult.
I'll be interested to see how the final wording is done but my guess is that it will be more worded like the NBA rule than most anone wants to admit.

When it is on the offensive team why not use the NBA definition " An offensive foul is illegal contact, committed by an offensive player, after the ball is live." and although the NBA doesnt consider the ball live until it leaves the throwers hands ( this is so any fouls prior to release are two shot fouls or away from the play foul in the last two minutes)) the NBA has that covered " A personal foul committed by the offensive team during a throw-in shall be an offensive foul, regardless of whether the ball has been released.

Or are we too stupid to figure out which player is on offense and which player is on defense?

Go figure on when the ball is loose why not just use the NBA's definition- it makes things a whole lot easier as Drake mentioned earlier "A loose ball foul is illegal contact, after the ball is alive, when team control does not exist."

Of course the NBA's definition of team control makes more sense too "A team is in control when a player is holding, dribbling or passing the ball. Team control ends when the defensive team deflects the ball or there is a field goal attempt." They dont need to worry about player and team control.

With these definitions there is a lot less confusion.

NFHS and NCAA sometimes make things more difficult than they ought to be trying to make everything fit into nice neat defintitions, or trying to make definitions fit consistently. That's why is has taken NF how many years to figure out the player catching the ball is possession and a violation just wasnt fair.


Maybe we'll get smart enough not to count the Offensive fouls towards the bonus either... Naw that would be too much to ask.

Honestly, that's one of the things about the NBA rules that just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's a personal foul, it should count against that person's team. What's the rationale for not counting it as a team foul? I honestly don't know. There can't be any logic to it, from a rules/definitions standpoint. The only reason for it seems to be that they don't want to get to the bonus too quickly. Well, then, why not exclude other kinds of fouls from the team count too? Maybe we could also exclude shooting fouls from the team count. Since the offended player is already awarded FTs, no need to count that foul toward the bonus.

That rant is totally irrelevant, sorry. But I wanted to say that I don't think it will be too complicated either if they simply say that the rule only applies when there's player control. That eliminates any weird possibilities. And we don't have to go the NBA's "loose ball" terminology, or change the definition of team control. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. ;)

Chuck

I have to agree with most of the above.Using the NBA definitions would make some plays a lot easier and simpler to interpret,call and apply.Maybe players,coaches,fans,announcers,some officials,etc. would have a better understanding too of what the right call and application is.Most of them don't have a clue about the concepts of player and team control as currently defined in NCAA/FED.I have to agree with Chuck,though.I can't see the logic of not counting offensive fouls toward the bonus.I do like the NBA rule,however,of starting the bonus fresh each quarter.That used to be the FED rule a long time ago-5 fouls per quarter put you into the bonus then.It makes for a much longer game now-especially when the skill level is low.

Although I cant officially comment for the NBA... My perspective of not counting the offensive fouls towards the bonus is this:

First it keeps the game moving with less fouls counting toward the penalty so you shoot a few times less per quarter.

Second from a game management situation, In a NF game are there crappy picks/marginal picks that we let go because we dont want to call fouls and shoot free throws? Does it ever run through your mind I ought to call the bad pick but because of bonus/team fouls etc you dont?
I think it encourages the calling of off ball stuff on the offense. The only penalty is the personal foul on the player, other than that it does not effect the game anymore than any other turnover.

And I wholeheartedly agree that the bonus should be by quarter and reset.

Uh, no. Would you really not call a foul b/c you didn't want to shoot FTs? :(

Chuck

The questions we all ask in games...
I kow it runs through many an official's mind...
Given the current game situation... points, time, and penalties,... does the contact warrant a foul being called. I know there are times we let marginally disavantageous stuff go because of those very reasons.

Go figure that's why the swinging elbows as a T is being changed. Nobody wanted to call it with that as a penalty. Make it a turnover and you'll see it called much more often. Same thing applies make offensive fouls a mere turnover and they get called more often

Kelvin,
Just for clarification.
The ball is considered "live" when it's placed at the throwers disposal. It is "alive" when it is released.:P
I know. I'm a pain in the a**.:D

I knew that- whoops- Thanks.

Still doesnt change the two shot foul before the ball becomes "alive"

Besides I need some one to be a pain in the *^& when it comes to the rules it keeps me straight