Possible rule changes, NCAAM style...
 

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

NCAA set to vote on key rule changes; shot clock likely to remain - CBSSports.com

I still take issue with emphasis on calling more fouls when the coaches and broadcasters clearly get on officials for calling a lot of fouls. Then complain on some TV show how more physical the game gets. Most of these things are window dressing for the people in the pitchforks the next time to complain about what we are doing and not taking responsibility for their role in the game.

Peace

I work NCAAW, but here are my thoughts:

"There's not a lot of momentum to change the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds," the source said.
-- Not surprised, reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds is too similar to the women's game and both rules committees seem hell-bent on keeping the games different.

The automatic flagrant fouls for the swinging of elbows will almost certainly be amended. The new rule will give referees a measure of discretion ... depending on the nature of the elbow and whether excessive contact is made.
-- No big surprise here either.

As is the case with the NBA, officials will be able to check replays at timeouts to determine whether a made shot is inside the arc or a 3-pointer. This would help the flow of the game. This would only apply in the first 36 minutes of the game.
-- Is this a big deal in NCAAM? I work in two conferences with monitors and have never had to check to see if a shot was two or three points.

Referees likely will be able to go the monitor in the last two minutes of the game for more than just flagrant calls, whether it's a 3-pointer or whether the clock had expired. They would also be able to go in the final minutes to determine possession after a difficult call to determine which player was the last to touch the ball.
-- This would be a welcome rule change IMO, hope they're considering this for the women's game as well.

The block/charge call could be slightly altered in an effort to help the offensive player. Under the existing rule, the secondary defender needs to be in legal guarding position before the player leaves the ground. The new interpretation would be that the defender needs to be set before the offensive player begins the upward motion of his shot. "We feel this would help referees and also reduce the number of charge calls," the source said.
-- So, they added the RA to push the defenders out and keep them from getting charge calls under the basket. Now, we're getting too many charge calls ... so we need to even things out? I'm indifferent to this one, but don't have that many RA calls working NCAAW (presuming they keep this rule the same for both men and women).

Instead of a full 35-second shot clock following a foul in the frontcourt, it will likely be reduced to somewhere between 20 and 25 seconds in an effort to create a few more possessions each game.
-- Meh. Indifferent here as well.

To try to improve the game and make it more free-flowing, there will be emphasis on the current rules (on pages 109 and 110 of the rule book) regarding hand-checking and cutting.
-- I would think this is an uphill battle, given the prevailing attitude of "let 'em play" that seems to be well entrenched in NCAAM ... especially at the D1 level.

Many college coaches, largely because they are the face of the sport, talk incessantly to the referees. Hit these guys with technicals early in the game and in the season, and it'll change quickly.
-- Amen.

One item noted is a potential change in guarding position for block/charge decisions from prior to airborne to the start of the upward movement as in the NBA.

Why is this a desirable change?

-----------------
"We feel this would help referees and also reduce the number of charge calls," the source said."
-------------------
First, the article doesn't attribute the quotes to anyone, just "the source," which is frustrating.
Second, how would this help referees? They still have to determine if a defender was in position prior to some other action occurring. At least when the feet leave the floor is clear on video and thus the decision now has a clear point at which to evaluate it. If they go to upward motion, it will be much more vague.
Third, the source says that this will reduce charging calls. Probably true as it would certainly tip the balance in favor of the offense, yet it isn't explained why this would be an improvement or positive. Is a charging foul a bad thing which should be more rare?
Seems that the NCAA is considering this for three reasons:
1. Because this is the way that the NBA does it.
2. More defensive fouls would increase scoring. There were several articles on the low-scoring college game lately.
3. Related to point 2, the low-scoring is seen as undesirable and that people don't enjoy watching the games, thus don't buy tickets and the product is less marketable. The hope is that changing some rules to increase scoring will lead to making more money.

I think possibly reducing the FF penalty for swinging elbows is a mistake. I work NCAAM basketball both before and after this rule has been implemented. I think the game has gotten much cleaner since this rule has been in effect. I realize there are times when a FF1 probably isnt warranted under the current rules, but all the players are aware of the ramifications of elbow contact, even if it is not excessive, and they have for the most part adapted their game to this. The number of plays with people truly swinging their elbows excessively is almost down to zero now, making the game much safer. Once officials get discretion on this play, you know that most of these calls will not be FF because of pressure from the coaches, so I would expect the elbow swinging to increase once the players realize they will most likely only be given a personal foul. I think this is one case where a rule designed to improve safety has actually had the intended effect with very little impact on any fundamental aspect of the game.

This was my only real criticism of the officiating in the NCAA Tournament. I felt like dribblers out top were getting mugged.

Here's a thought: Teach all those kids who drive to the hoop looking for their ten seconds of fame on ESPN how to shoot a pull-up, mid-range jump shot. Then watch as the PC fouls drop.

I agree that putting discretion into the elbow rule is a bad thing and that it will greatly lessen the harsher FF being assessed.
The problem is that the coaches are unhappy because their guys are being penalized and thus a change will be made. Sadly, this change will make the game less safe for the players.

I do not think reducing the elbow consideration of if it is a FF is a bad thing. Many plays the elbow is totally inadvertent and part of the play. We all know when those situations are when someone swings for a purpose. And I bet even if they put it on the officials to decide what the ultimate penalty will be, we will see the NCAA still suggest that most of these plays will be a FF. It I think it will be when a player simply hits someone with an elbow will be reduced to likely a common foul (or PC foul). Coaches were already complaining and that will not change.

Peace

Coaches are complaining about the rule, but very rarely do they complain about the call because they know there isnt any discretion. When this type of contact occurs, there will be a minimum of FF1. Now, everytime this happens, the coaches will be lobbying the officials that it should not be a FF, and as coaches are known to do, they will try to compare the penalty their player recieves to the player recieved by a player from the other team, even when the plays are not similar. The way the rule is now, you tell them contact with moving elbow above the shoulders, FF, and move on. They might not like it, but they know there is nothing to argue about. If changed, everyone of these calls is going to be a battle with a coach. Just adds more headache to a situation that was fairly easy to handle the way the rule is currently.

Dr. Naismith just woke from his eternal nap to applaud your thought process......:D:D:D