Needed college basketball rule changes.

[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

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Sorry. Misread it.

At any rate, the rules people (coaches) usually put stuff like this in because they feel we've been inconsistent. This takes away the officials' thought process for the most part.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Sorry. Misread it.

At any rate, the rules people (coaches) usually put stuff like this in because they feel we've been inconsistent. This takes away the officials' thought process for the most part.

I'll agree with this, too many officials were just no-calling the play because they decided it didn't need to be called.

[JetMetFan]

"Day-glo uniforms shall be prohibited."

[JRutledge]

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.

The safety part is so that they will stop allowing defenders to cheaply get contact and either have nothing called or prevent players from being willing to go hard to the basket. Of course the safety part was to open up the basket area. And I see players all the time get out of the way in order not to get a silly foul. I think the rule accomplished what they wanted it to.

Peace

[tmagan]

• If a field goal is made with a little more than a minute left in the second half or any overtime period and if the ball is not inbounded at the one minute mark, the clock should stop until the ball is legally inbounded. I've seen instances when officials go to the monitor to see if the clock should have stopped after a made basket when the ball cleared the bottom of the net at the approximate one minute period. That of course stops the clock in and of itself even if the ball cleared the bottom of the net with 1:01 left in the second half.

[chseagle]

A review like this is rarely seen.

Originally Posted by tmagan

• If a field goal is made with a little more than a minute left in the second half or any overtime period and if the ball is not inbounded at the one minute mark, the clock should stop until the ball is legally inbounded. I've seen instances when officials go to the monitor to see if the clock should have stopped after a made basket when the ball cleared the bottom of the net at the approximate one minute period. That of course stops the clock in and of itself even if the ball cleared the bottom of the net with 1:01 left in the second half.

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by chseagle

A review like this is rarely seen.

I saw Pat Driscoll doing exactly this during last years tournament. And if the ball went through the bottom of the net at 1:01 and the clock runs under a minute and if you stop the clock for a review and you determine the clock should still run since the ball went through the bottom of the net at 1:01, you can't take any extra time off the clock.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by tmagan

I saw Pat Driscoll doing exactly this during last years tournament. And if the ball went through the bottom of the net at 1:01 and the clock runs under a minute and if you stop the clock for a review and you determine the clock should still run since the ball went through the bottom of the net at 1:01, you can't take any extra time off the clock.

The under minute rule is good game management & having competent table officials that know what exactly to look for. In this case, as well, it's better to pre-game with partners & table what is to be expected & any variances/oddities that could happen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The safety part is so that they will stop allowing defenders to cheaply get contact and either have nothing called or prevent players from being willing to go hard to the basket. Of course the safety part was to open up the basket area. And I see players all the time get out of the way in order not to get a silly foul. I think the rule accomplished what they wanted it to.

Peace

I just don't get how anyone thinks that blocking an offensive player's path to where they want to shoot the ball is a cheap foul. That, to me, is the fundamental meaning of defense. If the offense chooses to continue through that spot anyway, they should be held responsible.

Of course, the NCAA (and NBA) redefined a basic fundamental of the game more to open up scoring under the guise of safety (regardless of what they say) instead of having officials call the rules that were in place which would have equally (perhaps more even more so) affected safety. I call it that way in an NCAA game, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I just don't get how anyone thinks that blocking an offensive player's path to where they want to shoot the ball is a cheap foul. That, to me, is the fundamental meaning of defense. If the offense chooses to continue through that spot anyway, they should be held responsible.

Of course, the NCAA (and NBA) redefined a basic fundamental of the game more to open up scoring under the guise of safety (regardless of what they say) instead of having officials call the rules that were in place which would have equally (perhaps more even more so) affected safety. I call it that way in an NCAA game, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I think we - through the inconsistency - helped created the safety issue. If we as a whole had been putting a whistle on those plays, one way or another, the problem would've stopped itself.

As far as I'm concerned, a kid standing under the goal waiting for contact is no more dangerous to an airborne shooter than a kid standing at one of the blocks on the FT lane. What makes the kid under the goal more "dangerous" is not calling a block (if, indeed, that's what it is).

That being said, I'm happy to say I didn't have any RA calls this past season in my NCAA games. That may change when the RA comes to girls' H.S. ball in New York State next season.