NCAA rules changes announced

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Is a restricted area even necessary in the first place?

If you gain LGP after a shooter leaves the floor, it can't be anything but a block, anyway.

In order for the game to be played the way it was meant to (free flowing, high scoring) I believe it is very neccessary.

With the exception to the offense violating, I agree, but the secondary defender not taking charges that close to the basket is a good move IMO.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The most misunderstood thing about that restricted area is the myth that it applies to everyone, but in fact, it applies to "secondary defenders."

Since the NBA actually has rules about how you can defend (the anti-zone mentality), it recognizes primary defenders ("YOUR guy"). However, since the NCAA allows any sort of defense, zone, double-teaming, et al, I wonder if some more things would need to be defined within NCAA rules, or they'd have to settle for, "you can't draw a block if you come of out nowhere and plant yourself in the restricted area."

Is a restricted area even necessary in the first place? If you gain LGP after a shooter leaves the floor, it can't be anything but a block, anyway.

Didn't the restricted area in NCAA-M already only apply to secondary defenders? If so, then I don't think it'll be a strecth to say that the RA will also apply to just secondary defenders.

What I want to see if there will be other situations where the RA won't apply. The RA in the NBA doesn't apply in certain situations or the offensive player does certain movements. Will the NCAA make exceptions like the NBA has for the RA?

[JRutledge]

We also know that the NCAA does a much better job than the NF for example in giving examples for their rules. I am sure there are already video being picked out to consider what applies and how it applies. I am not in the least worried about it at this time.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

In order for the game to be played the way it was meant to (free flowing, high scoring) I believe it is very neccessary.

With the exception to the offense violating, I agree, but the secondary defender not taking charges that close to the basket is a good move IMO.

I disagree. When a shooter jumps, he should have to take into account his landing path, and cutting off that path is a valid defensive move.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. When a shooter jumps, he should have to take into account his landing path, and cutting off that path is a valid defensive move.

I respect that Snaqs & its quite true, for every spot on the court except for the RA. I'm for good D & cutting off paths and all, just not under the bucket by a secondary defender. Players will do what they always do... adjust!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I respect that Snaqs & its quite true, for every spot on the court except for the RA. I'm for good D & cutting off paths and all, just not under the bucket by a secondary defender. Players will do what they always do... adjust!

They will, and I understand the reasoning behind it; to promote offense. I just don't think it has anything to do with "the way it was meant to be played."

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. When a shooter jumps, he should have to take into account his landing path, and cutting off that path is a valid defensive move.

I'm indifferent when it comes to the RA...I think it's a good rule for the NBA. I think it'll ultimately good for NCAA in the end run.

I will say that the trend in a lot of leagues is towards an RA. NBA has had it for awhile, FIBA has just added it recently, and NCAA-M has added it.

[tref]

Ok, maybe not "the way it was what meant to be played." But basketball has developed into a free flowing, finesse, high-wire act, no?

They dont call it the Greatest Game on Earth for nothing

[Texas Aggie]

The most misunderstood thing about that restricted area is the myth that it applies to everyone, but in fact, it applies to "secondary defenders."

By rule maybe. The way its called, it doesn't seem to matter. NBA officials don't like to call charges on players driving straight to the basket.

Either way, its just a totally stupid rule. Why is it bad for the shooter/driver to be defended by a secondary defender? Why is it bad to play defense close to the basket where maybe, just maybe, the defender MIGHT be a decent position for a rebound?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

By rule maybe. The way its called, it doesn't seem to matter. NBA officials don't like to call charges on players driving straight to the basket.

Either way, its just a totally stupid rule. Why is it bad for the shooter/driver to be defended by a secondary defender? Why is it bad to play defense close to the basket where maybe, just maybe, the defender MIGHT be a decent position for a rebound?

Say what?

You are absolutely wrong in your assessment of how block/charge plays in relational to the RA are called. On these type of plays, they're calling blocks if you're in (assuming the play originates outside the LDB), and charges if you're outside and there in time.

And I'll just say this about the RA...every major level of basketball has one save for NFHS and NCAA-W...your line of thinking is in the minority with most rules makers.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And I'll just say this about the RA...every major level of basketball has one save for NFHS and NCAA-W.....

Our local kids rec league has an RA. It's a ten foot diameter circle around me and all coaches are restricted from being inside it at any time.