NCAA rules changes announced
 

Men’s basketball rules committee recommends restricted area arc - NCAA.org

1) A restricted area arc, 3 feet in radius
2) Changing "intentional" and "flagrant" fouls to "Flagrant 1" and "Flagrant 2" fouls.
3) Formal warning for delay when not returning to play promptly following a time-out. After a warning, the RPP will be used.

Remember, these are still in the recommendation phase, unlike the NFHS in the other thread. The NFHS has actually approved their rule changes.

And for NCAAW:

1) Move three point line back a foot (to the Men's line)
2) Restricted Area Arc
3) "Flagrant 1" and "Flagrant 2"
4) Experimental -- 10 second back-court count

Bob, are you sure the Women get the arc as well?

Follow scrapper's link, delete the end portions "mens baskletball...." and then click on "womens basketball announces changes" or whatever it is

It's a proposal/recommendation from the Rules Committee...

"All recommendations must be approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which is scheduled to meet via conference call June 9."

I wonder why the committee decided on three feet versus four feet like the NBA? Also, I'm not surprised that they've recommended expanding the restricted area from directly under the rim to the current proposal. I also think the rule was a freaking joke without having the restricted area marked. I do think that this rule will definitely be passed. I do wonder if they'll word the rule to mimic the NBA as far as when the RA goes into effect/doesn't (secondary defender, plays originating in a lower defensive box, player alights, overt movements, etc)?

As for flagrant one vs flagrant two, I don't see this one as a big deal and it'll be easier for the fan since it'll be similar to the NBA terminology.

It does remove the implication that an intentional foul can only be called if the act was intentional vs. a foul for excessive contact.

True, and like it was mentioned in the article, there are certain elbow fouls that are intentional fouls but had nothing to do with "intent." Really, the intentional foul as far as fitting the namesake was pertinent mostly during fast breaks and few other situations. It's a good proposal for fans, coaches, and players.

I'm curious if this makes it to the "rule changes" section or if it would be an editorial change and if it's the later, why would this have to go through the rules committee?

Every change to the book aside from typographical errors will go through the committee as they are responsible for ensuring the new wording reflects their intent.

Since it doesn't change the acts that are illegal or the penalties that go with them, I'd view this as an editorial change.

However, the NFHS change regarding a foul on the throwin is classified as an editorial change is actually a rule change.

New rules have been approved as of May 23rd.

Note: All rules listed below have been approved for use in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons. The lone exception is for Division II and III institutions, the 3-foot restricted area arc will not go into effect until the 2012-13 season (Rule 4-35.7).

So, does this mean it wont be in effect for JUCO at all?

depends on which rule the NJCAA adopts.

Arc diagram.

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

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."

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.

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 :D

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? :confused:

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.

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.