Needed college basketball rule changes.

[Welpe]

Lo siento.

[Adam]

All is forgiven.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Regarding Required Substitutions:

R3-S4-A3f (Men): When an injured player is unable to attempt his free throw try(s), the coach from the opposing team shall select one of the four remaining players on the playing court to attempt the free throw try(s). When the foul is flagrant and the injured player is unable to attempt the free throw try(s), the injured player’s coach shall select any player or team member to attempt the free throw try(s).


Delete the bold in red.

MTD, Sr.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Maybe it is my old age and
...
note: Duffman, see how I apologized for making a mistake.
...

Okay, time for me to go back in my corning and mind my own business.
...
MTD, Sr.

What are you corning?

[Texas Aggie]

Expanded 'restricted area'.

Actually, they need to eliminate it. This is a totally stupid rule driven by huge misconception. Good defense is good for the game. Plus, players have been real good about adjusting when going full speed into the lane; why can't they adjust when someone is playing defense there -- secondary defender or otherwise.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Actually, they need to eliminate it. This is a totally stupid rule driven by huge misconception. Good defense is good for the game. Plus, players have been real good about adjusting when going full speed into the lane; why can't they adjust when someone is playing defense there -- secondary defender or otherwise.

I agree, but I think it's like the coach timeout. It's here to stay and probably coming down.

[tmagan]

If I had to add a couple more to the list, it would be this:

• Using the shot clock for the ten second backcourt count which is more accurate than an officials count.
• Having five seconds to shoot a free throw instead of ten. There is no way a player should need ten seconds to do that when you only have five to throw the ball in from out of bounds. In fact, during an NIT game last week at the University of Washington, the free throw shooter was taking so long, I saw Dave Hall looking up at the ceiling.
• Not allowing teammates to congratulate the free throw shooter for a made free throw. It needlessly delays the game. In fact, I read the NBA wanted to do something about it at their level and the Players Association rejected the change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Actually, they need to eliminate it. This is a totally stupid rule driven by huge misconception. Good defense is good for the game. Plus, players have been real good about adjusting when going full speed into the lane; why can't they adjust when someone is playing defense there -- secondary defender or otherwise.

The rule was put in place for safety purposes, not for really any other reasons. The NCAA wanted to eliminate a lot of unnecessary contact under the basket. And I think it has done just that.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tmagan

If I had to add a couple more to the list, it would be this:

• Using the shot clock for the ten second backcourt count which is more accurate than an officials count.

Well the problem with that is the clock has nothing to do with the start of the 10 second backcourt count, so you would have to change a couple of rules to accomplish that. And what if the defense touched the ball first, do you want to penalize the offense when they do not have control? Because that is the other ramification for that rule you suggest to be changed.

Originally Posted by tmagan

• Having five seconds to shoot a free throw instead of ten. There is no way a player should need ten seconds to do that when you only have five to throw the ball in from out of bounds. In fact, during an NIT game last week at the University of Washington, the free throw shooter was taking so long, I saw Dave Hall looking up at the ceiling.
• Not allowing teammates to congratulate the free throw shooter for a made free throw. It needlessly delays the game. In fact, I read the NBA wanted to do something about it at their level and the Players Association rejected the change.

These last two goes into the "Who cares" category. Not sure I have ever had a problem with the time it takes to shoot a FT and certainly do not care as the ball goes in the hole and often a sub is being made would I care about someone congratulating someone.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well the problem with that is the clock has nothing to do with the start of the 10 second backcourt count, so you would have to change a couple of rules to accomplish that. And what if the defense touched the ball first, do you want to penalize the defense when they do not have control? Because that is the other ramification for that rule you suggest to be changed.

I agree that some rules and definitions would have to be changed, but this isn't penalizing the defense, but rather would award the defense by allowing more of the 10 second count to expire. Same with having a hard count for the backcourt count.

Would the offense be hurt by the rule change? Sure, but I don't feel bad for them because they're in control of the ball while they're throwing the ball in (speaking literally...not the rule book definition of team control), and have control of where the ball goes.

As far as the five second deal, I wonder if FIBA officials enforce that strictly or are lax like those under NF/NCAA/NBA rule sets are...I've never viewed this as an issue...either with players slapping hands after free throws.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Regarding Required Substitutions:

R3-S4-A3f (Men): When an injured player is unable to attempt his free throw try(s), the coach from the opposing team shall select one of the four remaining players on the playing court to attempt the free throw try(s). When the foul is flagrant and the injured player is unable to attempt the free throw try(s), the injured player’s coach shall select any player or team member to attempt the free throw try(s).


Delete the bold in red.

MTD, Sr.

That cat is never going back in the bag...coaches are too paranoid, and I wouldn't blame them. There's too much on the line at the NCAA and NBA level to not think a coach would abuse your suggested rule re-change at an opportune time. Heck, just look at some of the issues and problems of teams being accused of abusing an injury timeout at "opportune" times in NCAA football and even the NFL now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that some rules and definitions would have to be changed, but this isn't penalizing the defense, but rather would award the defense by allowing more of the 10 second count to expire. Same with having a hard count for the backcourt count.

Would the offense be hurt by the rule change? Sure, but I don't feel bad for them because they're in control of the ball while they're throwing the ball in (speaking literally...not the rule book definition of team control), and have control of where the ball goes.

As far as the five second deal, I wonder if FIBA officials enforce that strictly or are lax like those under NF/NCAA/NBA rule sets are...I've never viewed this as an issue...either with players slapping hands after free throws.

I mistyped, I meant the offense.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule was put in place for safety purposes, not for really any other reasons. The NCAA wanted to eliminate a lot of unnecessary contact under the basket. And I think it has done just that.

Peace

A far easier change would have been to have official call the charge that happened under the basket rather than require a new marking and rule. Had they done so, the offensive players would have stopped flying in even after they saw a defender standing there. It would have fixed the "safety" problem just the same and could have been done so without a rule change. However, while they may have stated it was about safety, it was about opening up the basket area just as much.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A far easier change would have been to have official call the charge that happened under the basket rather than require a new marking and rule. Had they done so, the offensive players would have stopped flying in even after they saw a defender standing there. It would have fixed the "safety" problem just the same and could have been done so without a rule change. However, while they may have stated it was about safety, it was about opening up the basket area just as much.

But how were you/we going to call plays "under the basket" and do so consistently without the RA on the court? With no marking it would be left up to officials' judgment as to what "under the basket" meant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

But how were you/we going to call plays "under the basket" and do so consistently without the RA on the court? With no marking it would be left up to officials' judgment as to what "under the basket" meant.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying to call the area under the basket just like any other area on the court. If the officials had called the proper charges under the old rules, the effect (fewer crashes under the glass) would have been the same.