FIBA vs. NBA/NCAA/NFHS
 

An assignor friend started this on FB so I thought I'd brnig the question here.

What, if any, FIBA rules would you like to see used in the NBA/NCAA/NFHS? Here's a link to the FIBA rule book to help you along.

http://www.fiba.com/downloads/Rules/...lRules2012.pdf

Just to get things started, two I like are:

*19.3.6 (if a coach doesn't provide a substitute for a disqualified player in the allotted time their team is charged with a time out). They only get a T if they don't have a time out.

*29.1.2 (if a shot misses the rim after the shot-clock expires and the defensive team has immediate and clear control of the ball, play continues).

Honestly I cannot think of a single rule that I would care to adopt from FIBA to any level. I just do not like their approach to the game of basketball in general and I do not think any rule they have would make the game better.

Peace

The only thing you're going to get a lot of people here to say in any kind of numbers is only allowing coaches to call timeouts.

There's only one rule I can think of off the top of my head that I think FIBA does better...free throw violations (not by the shooter) by either team is ignored if the free throw is made. There are people calling for the NBA to adopt FIBA's goaltending/BI rules, and I don't see the need for it.

But in general I have to agree with JRut's in that I'm not a huge fan of FIBA's approach to the game...though it has gotten better as they've more closely matched the NBA/NCAA.

Their English is plainly better...
 

Not sure about what specific rules we should adopt. I do vote strongly that we engage their rule book EDITORS. I often find myself admiring the lucidity of their writing style when compared to the cramped, stilted and often contradictory drivel promulgated by the NFHS editors.

I'm a minimalist. I like game flow and less whistles.

The clear defensive rebound on a missed-the-ring FGA at the buzzer is great.

Shooting the penalty on the 5th of each quarter is great: games I work hit the penalty less often.

Advancing the ball to the FC 28' line after a Team A timeout makes for some great dramatic endings.

Having the coaches deal with the table for TOs is great - there's no "timeout! timeout! timeout!" as a player with control just touches out of bounds.

The ignoring of the FT violations is awesome. Less whistles - get the game going again.

The clear path rule - that's great too. You actually have to make an effort to play good defense.

And that's just for starters!

Closely Guarded
 

The FIBA Closely Guarded rule is three feet not six feet, only while holding the ball, and in both the Backcourt and the Front Court. I would adopt the three feet while only holding the ball in the Front Court.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I should clarify, that I am advocating this adoption for NFHS and NCAA Men's because NCAA Women's has always used the FIBA rule (but I would adopt Front Court only for NCAA Women's too).

Agreed. I don't see any point in stopping the game when the defense already has the ball back.

I wouldn't mind NFHS looking into this. Of course, the NCAA would have to switch to 4 tens to make this happen, and with all of those media time-outs anyway, that wouldn't be such a stretch.

I'm dead set against all three of these:
*Why should the offense get the ball at a spot on the floor they haven't earned?
*The live-ball time-out is a big part of the American game. I'd be stunned to see rules committees make changes here.
*If you allow offensive players to violate on free throws, you're going to see a lot more violations when the shot is missed. The point of the enforcement is to discourage violations.

I missed something here. What's this rule?

I don't understand that line of thinking. As is right now, we do the exact same thing for the defense in that if they violate, we only care if the free throw is missed. That same would happen if we treated offensive violations the exact same way.

As for the clear path rule,

FIBA 2012
Rule 6, Article 32

36.1.3 To judge whether a foul is unsportsmanlike, the officials should apply the following principles:
...

• If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the offensive player and the opponents’ basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.

The NBA has a similar rule except it's a little more stringent...

There must be new team possession (as in they have to have held/dribbled the ball before they got fouled)
The play must originate in the backcourt (including throw-in in the backcourt)
The foul must occur between the tip of the court in the backcourt extended and the basket in the frontcourt court
When the player was fouled, there was no defender between the offensive player and the basket.

Actually, it's 1 metre. FIBA uses the Metric Measurement System. :)

Plus, 1 metre is 3.28084 feet. :eek:

Inquiring minds . . .
 

Is a "metre" the same as a "meter"?

I don't know.

What's a meter? ;)

Right, because to penalize a defensive violation when the free throw is good is to unfairly punish the offense. Such a penalty makes no sense.

It could be worse, though. Looking at the soccer equivalent, the penalty kick, if the offense violates, and the goal is good, we re-shoot. Anyone in favor of going that route in basketball? (ducking)

Thanks. I remember this.

I saw this applied in a USA women's game vs. Croatia over the weekend. I saw I foul that I probably would have let go -- clear breakaway from the division line, contact, though neither heavy nor advantageous -- because the contact didn't neutralize anything. While we have the intentional foul in our NFHS rule book, it doesn't specifically cover break-aways (though that could be left to local interpretation).

I'll give the benefit of the doubt at 3.2 feet, but at 3.1, I'm counting.

If it wasn't advantageous, why not just let the dribbler continue for an uncontested layup? If it was advantageous, then the NFHS intentional foul rule would apply.

And while I wouldn't be against allowing the offense to reshoot, I see no reason to lessen the penalty.

I think the FT violation penalties are inequitable. I think the soccer has it at least partially right. If the shot ends in a preferred manner for the violating team (make for the offense, miss for the defense), reshoot. If the shot ends in an undesirable manner for the violating team, let it stand....which we already do for defensive violations. For offensive violations on miss, we'd probably need to award the ball to the defense since the offense probably got a rebounding advantage by violating.

Yeah, I could see that. Then, perhaps, a double violation would make more sense than what now is essentially ignoring the defensive side and punishing only the offense when more FTs are to follow.

Do it your way on single violations. On double violations, cancel the whole shot and move on to what's next.

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

The only problem I can see, which is minor, would be that this would increase the number of violations we get when non-shooters come into the lane late. Right now, they know they can't do it at all (some still do occasionally, but hardly ever at the JV level and above). But if we make it so it doesn't matter on some shots, they'll forget occasionally.

Not a major deal, and I can't think of a reason not to go along with that suggestion.

If the ball is to remain dead after the free throw is completed, this is how they handle it in the NBA.

Système International D'Unités Humor ...
 

Nothing. What's a meter with you?

Well, in that case, it can't possibly be a good idea. I don't know what came over me. ;)

It'll pass.

I can see the positives from this but I actually prefer it the way it is for NBA/NCAA/NFHS. I definitely don't think it would be applied well at the NFHS level or at the D-3 (and some D-2) level because that would require a table that pays attention and, well...

I wouldn't be against only allowing players to call time out. It eliminates the "Time out! Time out!" thing with coaches - at least in regards to us - and we normally will see a player when he/she requests a time out.

With regard to not whistling a shot clock violation if the defense gets immediate clear control:

There would be issues with timing rules. Under NBA rules, a team is only allowed a flat 24 seconds, from the time they get possession, if they commit a shot clock violation. This is especially of importance in late game situations:

Say there's 27.7 when Team A inbounds the ball with a fresh 24. A1 releases a field goal attempt before the buzzer but fails to cause the ball to hit the basket ring. B2 rebounds the ball with clear and immediate possession of the ball with 1.7 left on the clock.

FIBA: Play on as Team B has gotten clear and immediate possession of the ball thus no violation. This ends up not rewarding good defense. Also, under FIBA rules, since there are no live ball timeouts, basically Team B has to throw up a 3/4 shot. Basically, under FIBA rules, we're going to see end of game fouling, rather than the defense attempt to "play it out," with a lot more time left, not unlike NCAA-M.

NBA: Shot clock violation. Officials will reset the clock to 3.7 seconds. And now Team B, being rewarded for their good defense, will also be allowed to call a timeout and advance the ball to the 28' mark with a full 3.7 on the clock.

It's clear that the NBA doesn't want the offense taking more than 24 seconds off the clock (give or take a couple of tenths when they aren't clearly shown on the game clock) if they commit a shot clock violation as officials will correct this at any point in the game.

None of that really matters.....24 seconds is really just an arbitrary threshold. If they wanted a team to take no more than 24 seconds, the would require it to hit the rim by 24 seconds but they don't.

24 seconds was chosen solely in an effort to achieve a certain number of points per game.....that's all.

Sure, it would change the result of a few plays, but it does so in a way that doesn't really matter.

Whether arbitrary or not, it doesn't matter. The NBA doesn't want teams taking more than 24 seconds if they commit a shot clock violation. It's how their rule and subsequent case book plays are written out. They even go so far as to correct the game clock very early in the game. For example, if a team opens the 2nd quarter committing a shot clock violation (with no resets) with 11:34 on the clock, you best believe they'll reset the clock to 11:36.

Those few plays are why the rule change would not be implemented in the NBA.

Side note:

24 seconds was picked by dividing 2880 seconds (number of seconds in a 48 minute game) by 120 shots between the two teams (Danny Biasone, Syracuse Nationals owner figured this to be the "sweet spot" between stall ball and a "wild shootout.")

My research long ago showed that some man way back in the 50s divided the length of a game by the number of possessions in a typical. His result led to the common 24 second shot clock.

You might be right.

However, I would invite you to referee a season of FIBA before making that determination. :P

As for the table dealing with TOs, two things:

• it was tough the first year or two they brought it in, but at this point, I have very rare table issues now
• it will bring chseagle back!

;)

APG:

Dang, you beat me to it. I am getting old (which MTD, Jr., and Andy keep reminding me). LOL

But one should remember that the FIBA shot clock has not always been 24 seconds; in fact it is a relatively recent change (withing the last 8 years I think). Originally it was 30 seconds and that is why the NCAA Women's shot clock is 30 seconds because the NAGWS Basketball Rules for women's college basketball was based upon FIBA Rules which used a 30 second shot clock.

MTD, Sr.

I should read the rest of the comments before I get all excited.

The only thing that I don't like about FIBA for young players is that they can't run an offense in 24 seconds. Grade 8 and below I'd like to see 35 seconds. High school: 30 seconds.

If you could find the case play for this I'd appreciate it. Maybe I missed it but I looked through the NBA rule and case books and from what I can see the shot clock would only be reset once there's a definite change of possession.

How can the shot clock be reset to 3.7 seconds if, when the shot clock expired, the ball was in the air? There's no violation until the ball fails to touch the rim.

NBA Case Book (2011-2012)

158. Player A1 scores a field goal with :31.0 remaining on the game clock in the first period. Following this, Player B2 attempts a field goal with one second remaining on the 24-second clock, which does not touch the basket ring. Player A1 secures possession of the ball and immediately calls timeout with: 05.0 on the game clock. What is the procedure regarding the amount of time remaining?

Officials shall direct the clock operator to reset the game clock to read :07.0. When the 24-second clock shows “0” and the field goal attempt fails to touch the basket ring, a 24-second violation has occurred.
RULE 7 - SECTION II - c (2)

159. Team B scores a successful field goal with :27.0 remaining in the fourth period and still trails, 121-120. Team A advances the ball into the frontcourt and with :04.0 on the game clock, Player A1 throws the ball towards the ceiling. Before the ball returns to the floor, both the 24-second clock and the game clock reads zero. What is the ruling?

Officials shall direct the official timer to reset the game clock to :03.0.
RULE 7 - SECTION II - c (2)

Thanks. I was looking in the 24-second clock section as opposed to the game clock section.