NCAA rules changes announced

[Scrapper1]

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.

[Raymond]

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

[bob jenkins]

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

[LouisianaDave]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LouisianaDave

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by LouisianaDave

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

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."

[APG]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It does remove the implication that an intentional foul can only be called of 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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

[Raymond]

New rules have been approved as of May 23rd.

[tref]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

[Raymond]

Arc diagram.

[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.