Potential Rule Changes for 2021-22
This already happens...
Epsilon
M tipping over
- Pdx
Some good points here about help defense drawing charges. Another article on a couple changes that should have been considered. I tend to agree that help side D shouldn’t be so able to draw charges so easily. If you beat your man, you should have a bit more leeway to make a play.
Also really not liking the additional replay options. Especially for off-ball stuff.
Also really not liking the additional replay options. Especially for off-ball stuff.
The block:charge call kills me. I am 100% for taking charges, but until referees at literally every level stop defenders from sliding under a player already in the air, it needs to be thoroughly reviewed to see if it’s doing more harm than good.
blackdog
- Champaign
The NBA refs do a good job with calling blocks/charges. Its way harder to get a charges called in the NBA it has to be pretty clear that posisition is already established.
IlliniSaluki
- IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
I think maybe just move the charge/block line out a little further.. cause if you're launching that far away you're either trying to showboat dunk or abuse the system if a person can't slide in under a person already in the air.. so I would say outside the line (that arc under the basket area) charges can still happen regardless if the defender slid in under while still outside of that line.. and if it happens within that area then it's like it is now a no call OR blocking foul.
I may just be seeing the rare chance someone would try and abuse that rule but eh.. maybe moving that line out a little farther wouldn't be bad anyways.. Is it currently at the NBA distance from the rim or is the NBA line out further than CBB's?
The proposed rule changing traveling calls would finish me watching college games. I refuse to watch NBA Basketball because they all travel..they take extra steps to dunk or steps to get open to shoot...its ridiculous. The euro hop is nothing more than "up and down", or a turnover by any other word. I am most irritated because the NBA describes their athletes as best conditioned in the world...yet they all travel on almost every possession which kills it for me
Your first paragraph confuses me. College players and even good high school players can take off from 10 feet plus to dunk or lay the ball in. Most high school long jumpers can jump 21+ feet and a lot of those guys play basketball. I don’t think it’s taking advantage or a rule or show boating to take off from far out. I think it’s ability.
IlliniSaluki
- IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
Well then either way you look at it.. if you're launching from far enough away then what is the defender supposed to do? Just step to the side and watch you go by? Sorry I don't by that. If you take off from far enough out you take the gamble of someone sliding in for a charge or not. I do think refs need to allow baskets to be good more often when the ball has clearly left the hand before the charge but that's not what this was about. It's a risk vs reward thing.. If you go up far enough away you shouldn't just be given a free pass just because you maybe athletic enough for it. I did say maybe move the arc under the basket out a little more too to compensate for that.
Have you played basketball before? You’re advocating bridging somebody which is widely considered to be the dirtiest play in the game.
If somebody takes off from far out, the basket is not conceded. The defensive play is made in the air at the rim.
IlliniSaluki
- IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
I'm advocating keeping it how it already is if it's out beyond the charge/block arc ...
even moving that arc out a little further than it is now if needed. You would still have to setup for the charge outside of that line.danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
The choice of FT vs. throw-in is an interesting idea, hadn't heard that one before. Not sure how much it will really help, though, because it still doesn't remove the incentive to foul to lengthen the game (it's still easier and faster, in terms of clock time, to get a steal on an inbounds, versus during the flow of play).
IMO what they ought to do instead is go to hockey-like foul rules: signal with a hand up when it occurs, but don't whistle it until one of two things happens:
1) loss of possession -> treat it as non-shooting fouls are currently treated (ball out of bounds, bonus, double bonus, etc.)
2) there's a shot attempt -> treat it as a shooting foul
A shooting foul is basically a case where you go to #2 immediately, so those wouldn't change. And charges would also be the same under case #1, since the team receiving the foul didn't have possession to begin with
This does give the offense a bit more advantage, but it has the very clear benefit (IMO) of making fouls always bad for the fouling team. Specifically, the following situations where fouling can currently help the defense are improved:
- The only useful goal in end-game situations becomes legally stealing the ball. If you can get the ball back without fouling, great; otherwise, tough luck. No more half-hearted touching to "foul" and extend the game ad nauseum (and no need to change to the Elam ending, which I don't hate but don't love).
- A shot opportunity is always a shot opportunity, even if you had to work through a foul to get there. A non-shooting foul can no longer transform an easy layup into a brand new possession, benefitting the defense. Instead, regular fouls work just like shooting fouls, where any benefit (to the defense) of illegally preventing a shot gets weighed against the risk (to the defense) of an and-1.
IMO what they ought to do instead is go to hockey-like foul rules: signal with a hand up when it occurs, but don't whistle it until one of two things happens:
1) loss of possession -> treat it as non-shooting fouls are currently treated (ball out of bounds, bonus, double bonus, etc.)
2) there's a shot attempt -> treat it as a shooting foul
A shooting foul is basically a case where you go to #2 immediately, so those wouldn't change. And charges would also be the same under case #1, since the team receiving the foul didn't have possession to begin with
This does give the offense a bit more advantage, but it has the very clear benefit (IMO) of making fouls always bad for the fouling team. Specifically, the following situations where fouling can currently help the defense are improved:
- The only useful goal in end-game situations becomes legally stealing the ball. If you can get the ball back without fouling, great; otherwise, tough luck. No more half-hearted touching to "foul" and extend the game ad nauseum (and no need to change to the Elam ending, which I don't hate but don't love).
- A shot opportunity is always a shot opportunity, even if you had to work through a foul to get there. A non-shooting foul can no longer transform an easy layup into a brand new possession, benefitting the defense. Instead, regular fouls work just like shooting fouls, where any benefit (to the defense) of illegally preventing a shot gets weighed against the risk (to the defense) of an and-1.
Noblesville Illini
- Nappanee, IN
Drew Timme would hate that rule!
While this is true, you are much more likely to get the ball in the hands of a good FT shooter on an inbounds play. You can leave a guy like Kofi in the game b/c you can manage the risk/reward of having your best rebounder on the court in a close game. if you want him to take the shots for that possession, that's your prerogative. If you'd rather attempt to inbound to someone else, its a nice option to have.
It doesn't remove ALL the incentive, but it does lessen the likelihood of that strategy being an effective one.
When the game of basketball was first invented the foul rule was that the offending player would sit until the other team scored. Something like the NHL does today with 2 minute infractions
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
I agree, it does help the game a bit in this regard. It just doesn’t fix what I think is the fundamental flaw: as much as possible, an infraction should never give a team a guaranteed benefit. Preventing a team from running out the clock is a case where, currently, you can get a guaranteed benefit, since the alternative is a (basically) guaranteed loss.
Only one assistant coach can be poached from the same team per rolling 12 month period, beginning next year.
Still wouldn't have helped us. Calipari doesn't follow rules.
I think it's more about the being up 3 end of game scenario than anything else.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
The defender should jump also, with hands straight up, to contest the shot. If contact is made and the defender is straight up, then there is no foul on either player.
The refs are negatively impeding the whole outcome of the game. 1. Key fouls that the opposition, uses to close gap and in some cases/ they call a foul for one player but the same foul happens on the other end and no whistle. 2. (How in the world did they call 2 shots), and another 3 shots and the ball- I forget what game it was, but that is clearly helping someone who has paid for your services. The regular season- we saw some traveling, some double dribble, but I know that there were a lot of times I saw players still moving into AYO, TRENT and Kofi when the screener was to be set..... That must stop, because as long as the screener or pick man on the pick and roll can slide around - into a position and don't have to set then how is the defender to play that. I also want to have referees be held accountable for their mistakes- ohh you call the foul- when Ayo gets smashed but how many times did we see Trent, Jaden Springer, Josh Christopher and even the game in which USC vs GONZAGA, it seemed every other foul was on the trojens. If you doubt whatever I have posted please post and clarify.
Offensive players that stick out that off hand or arm and (even slightly extend should be called for an offensive foul- especially if they use the elbow). It is also a travesty in the game of basketball when you have come to a complete stop. You spin one way and then spin back the other way. THAT IS A TRAVEL. How can you do that and not once move off your pivot foot or shoot without being balanced on the floor. If refs make 1 mistake.. that's o.k. but 3 and 4 calls no matter what they are can affect the way players are coached to play. No coach can truthfully tell a player that no matter what calls are made we must fight and compete in spite of the unknown but when it is Paramount and objectively obvious to everyone and the players it is not easy to get the best from your players skillwise and the necessary disciplines that you need to have in any game and for the ups and downs throughout the course of the season.
Whatever happened to the rule, that over the 4 years (that) program must have a number of players reach junior and prerequisite academic graduation standard. If not; program could lose scholarship numbers that may effect the rercuitment of others.. especially transfers.
Travelling has become just stupid. If you want to see that, it is now team handball, not basketball.