'No-charge zone' approved in basketball

[All_Heart]

Has anyone heard if this is true? And what the list of rule proposals are? This "reporter" is the only one that has written this that I can find. Wasn't two hand reporting one of the recommended mechanic changes?



'No-charge zone' approved in basketball

The "no-charge zone" now is officially destined to be added to the vernacular in college men's basketball.

In an e-mail message Thursday afternoon, NCAA spokeswoman Gail Dent said the NCAA Rules Oversight Committee approved all recommended rules during its Wednesday telephone conference.

The NCAA Basketball Playing Rules Committee had recommended the new rule, which creates a no-charge zone for "help" defenders that extends from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard.

If a help defender has even a part of a foot in that roughly 24-inch area and is involved in contact on a drive, that defender automatically will be called for a defensive foul.

Some coaches and referees had hoped to have an arc drawn on the court to define the no-charge zone the way the NBA has. ACC officiating coordinator John Clougherty was among those who said an arc would have helped referees see the no-charge zone better.

But the Playing Rules Committee was concerned about a four-year waiting period that would have been required to allow schools to have the arcs painted on their courts.

[DonInKansas]

It would take four years to get everyone to paint 2 small arcs on their court? Are team colors that hard to come by?

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

It would take four years to get everyone to paint 2 small arcs on their court? Are team colors that hard to come by?

Good one!

[Nevadaref]

Sadly, it's true.

NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committees Announce Rules Changes, Including a Focus on Sportsmanship - NCAA.org

On the men’s rules side, the committee made two significant alterations. After discussing adding a restricted area arc at length, the committee instead decided to define the area under the basket and prohibit a secondary defender from establishing guarding position in that area. In the rules proposal, a secondary defender must establish position outside the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard.
“In our surveys and rules forums, the coaches wanted the committee to address the increasing contact that seems to occur under the basket,” said Ed Bilik, secretary-editor of the men’s committee. “Instead of an experimental rule, this clarifies how officials are to call this play throughout the season.”

[refiator]

NCAA is becoming NBA, Jr. I hate this.... NBA bores me to tears, and I love NCAA...for now. Sad.

[Nevadaref]

There are two huge problems with this.

1. They wish the officals to call it that way, but don't give them an indicator on the floor such as the arc that the NBA has. Very poor idea.

2. This is a 180 degree reversal in the NCAA policy. Just last season they stated how charges must be called in the area under the basket.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are two huge problems with this.

1. They wish the officals to call it that way, but don't give them an indicator on the floor such as the arc that the NBA has. Very poor idea.

2. This is a 180 degree reversal in the NCAA policy. Just last season they stated how charges must be called in the area under the basket.

You are correct, but this is consistent with the NCAA being inconsistent. I know it would piss a lot of people off and cost them money, but NCAA officiating will never be what it could as long as things like this happen to make things more inconsistent than they already are. Sure, there will always be differences because officials are different, but when you do things like this it makes it worse. A play in Seattle should be officiated the same way it is in Chapel Hill (gasp), Memphis, Dallas, etc.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by tomegun

You are correct, but this is consistent with the NCAA being inconsistent. I know it would piss a lot of people off and cost them money, but NCAA officiating will never be what it could as long as things like this happen to make things more inconsistent than they already are. Sure, there will always be differences because officials are different, but when you do things like this it makes it worse. A play in Seattle should be officiated the same way it is in Chapel Hill (gasp), Memphis, Dallas, etc.

So you are saying that every level of officiating is inconsistent and that all refs suck?? Should we just show you to the fanboy website?? Are you even one of us anymore or am I just reading your posts incorrectly? I would like to say im just kidding but you seem to be really negative to the avocation in the last posts i've seen.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So you are saying that every level of officiating is inconsistent and that all refs suck?? Should we just show you to the fanboy website?? Are you even one of us anymore or am I just reading your posts incorrectly? I would like to say im just kidding but you seem to be really negative to the avocation in the last posts i've seen.

I'm just being realistic about things. Have I said something that isn't true? Why would you make a new rule concerning the restricted area, but not give an area clearly marked? How do you think that is going to turn out? I've been all over this country and seen first hand the disparity among officials. Different things are important depending on where you live and unfortunately they sometimes have nothing to do with what is on the court. It is what it is.

[NICK]

2010 FIBA rule amendment: Art. 2.2.7 No-charge semicircles

The no-charge semicircles shall be marked on the playing court, under the baskets. The distance of the inner edge of the semicircles shall be 1,25 m from the centre of the basket (on the floor).

A charging (offensive) foul should never be called if the contact by the offensive player is with the defensive player standing within the no-charge semicircle.
Cheers- Nick

[tomegun]

I see two other things happening as a result of this:

1. Contact that was previously charging will result in a no-call. This will not be the case all of the time, but I think it will happen more than it should.
2. This will trickle down (even more) to the high school level and coaches will question offensive calls that are near where a restricted area would be in college or the NBA.

Note - I'm not being negative (Btaylor ). I'm just trying to think of all the things that could happen as a result of this rule change. Remember, the NBA adopted this rule, but they are full time employees.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are two huge problems with this.

2. This is a 180 degree reversal in the NCAA policy. Just last season they stated how charges must be called in the area under the basket.

Regarding point 2, I think that this is not so much the NCAA being inconsistent but simply a lack of foresight. They made a point of telling officials to call more charges under the basket. This gave the defense a significant advantage, especially at bigger-program schools with the bigger, quicker defenders.

Now the committee aims to neutralize this advantage with a no-charge zone, because defense is boring. And they fail to foresee the problems with that idea (but only expect to live with them, since pro ball has them too).

Think your school can score 100 in 40 minutes?

[dbking]

I just want to go on record, "This is a bad idea!"

I predict there will be a retreat on this in the very near future.

[GoodwillRef]

The Men's game is getting way to rough in the area under and near the basket especially in the Big 10 and Big East...what does a defensive player need to do to get an offensive foul? Official seem to lean way too much on a "no call" instead of calling IMO obvious offensive fouls...these 2 leagues have become more physical than the NBA.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nagy0716

I think that they all need to sit down and have the same rules for everything! Too much discussions each year about changing rules

Each level has a different focus, and different importance placed on different aspects of the game. So, not only will you never get them to agree to the same rules; I see no reason that it's even desirable.