OT - John Feinstein - How to Make College Basketball Better

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Issue #1: See the NCAA Rules Book. NCAA R4-S17-A1d: A delay is any action that impedes the progress or continuity of the game. Such actions include, but are not limited to: Repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court (See Rule 10-S2-A5b, which states: After a team warning has been issued, repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put in play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anyplace on the playing court. PENALTY: (Art. 4 and 5) Two free throws awarded to the offended team. The ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption.).

This solution is no different that in the NFHS Rules Book. The real problem is at the JrHS and HS level: Officials do NOT enforce the rule from the beginning of the game; maybe it is time it becomes a POE in both the NFHS and NCAA Rules books. The NFHS rule has been in the book for close to twenty years and yet I have coaches tell me that they have never heard of such a rule. And this is not a sexist statement but girls' teams are worse than boys' teams when it comes to violating this rule. I have yet to charge a team with a TF for this infraction but MTD, Jr., and I do issue the Official Warnings when appropriate as specified in NFHS R4-S47.


Issue #2: I have talked with officiating friends for years with awarding three FTs starting with the 13th foul of the half, but everybody things it is too extreme for a penalty.

Mark, Jr., and I had an afternoon game yesterday and listened to the Duke-Syracuse (Syracusa for "our" friends; look up the rules for being in the Costra Nostra or Mafia, .) on our ride home. Bob Valvano was the color commentator for ESPN on the game and he freely discussed the possibility of Syracuse fouling to prevent Duke from attempting a three-point FG.


Just two items that the Rules Committees should look at for next year.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Regarding Issue #2. As a student of the game (very few people know that I can claim to come from an coaching background) and I do not have a problem with a team fouling at the end of the game. But I would like to see a "triple" bonus, if you will, adopted in the future, because I think at a certain point in the game, a team giving up two FTs to keep a team from scoring a three-point FG is an unbalance in the rules.

[Adam]

I had a team try to foul early when up by 3 with 4 seconds left. Unfortunately, by the time they actually fouled the kid, he had started his shooting motion with about .9 left.

Kid missed the first FT though.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Just two items that the Rules Committees should look at for next year.

MTD, Sr.

I hope the rules committee has more important things to look at than players holding up the FT administration by a whole five seconds.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have added a P.S. to my OP.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

The triple bonus wouldn't do anything. Most times, when a team is ahead by three and ready to foul, they aren't anywhere near 13 or 15 fouls for the half. It would only be effective for this tactic by random chance.

Unless you are going to suggest three shots for a team trailing by three when there is a common foul with less than 5 seconds left (or some other arbitrary parameters).

[JRutledge]

Teams will still foul even if they give them 3 shots. Especially if the total is close. It is not going to change things that drastically. And that is not the reason the games are taking longer in closer games for example.

Peace

[Altor]

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Altor

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

That would make the game last just as long as awarding three FTs and the team could only score no more than two points.

MTD, Sr.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Altor

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

A return to three for two (well the NBA had it) ? What's next, bringing back the foul paddles? Two shots for a backcourt foul?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by APG

I hope the rules committee has more important things to look at than players holding up the FT administration by a whole five seconds.

APG:

I do not believe the rule needs to be changed, I just think that it should be a POE. Nothing bugs me more that to be ready to administer a FT and I have to wait while because the FT Thrower has to slap five with her four teammates. If officials would just make one "unofficial" warning the first time it happens, 90% of the time it won't happen again, and if an Official warning is issued the next time it will not happen again period. Players learn very quickly.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

APG:

I do not believe the rule needs to be changed, I just think that it should be a POE. Nothing bugs me more that to be ready to administer a FT and I have to wait while because the FT Thrower has to slap five with her four teammates. If officials would just make one "unofficial" warning the first time it happens, 90% of the time it won't happen again, and if an Official warning is issued the next time it will not happen again period. Players learn very quickly.

MTD, Sr.

It'd be a waste of a POE if you ask me...I've never heard anyone complain about having to wait a few extra seconds to administer FT's. I think the rule is fine as it is...for situations that are truly causing a real appreciable delay in the game.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

It'd be a waste of a POE if you ask me...I've never heard anyone complain about having to wait a few extra seconds to administer FT's. I think the rule is fine as it is...for situations that are truly causing a real appreciable delay in the game.

I am curious about the history of this rule. What situation back in the day created an advantage for a team so much so that they had to make a rule about it? Anyone know?