Potential Rule Changes for 2021-22

#26      
I disagree. This turns late leads into insurmountable mountains. It’s like high school basketball with no shot clock and a lead in the last 2 minutes

Fouling is basically breaking the rules, so allowing a strategy based on that to get a team back in the game seems to go against the intent of sportsmanship

I know the team that is down needs to find a way to conserve clock, so I get fouling and am okay with it, but the other team should have a say in what comes after the foul instead of being forced to shoot two shots at one point each when the losing team can then get the ball back and shoot one shot for two or maybe three points.

Allowing the winning team the choice to simply throw the ball in makes the losing team have to expend ANOTHER foul if they don’t get the steal...which will add up quicker and be more of a detriment...as fouls should.

It also gives more options to the winning team in case their version of Kofi is hacked instead of a good FT shooter.
 
#27      
BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
If they are going to change something, get rid of the alternating possession. Jump away.
Then you'll be happy to hear that eliminating the alternating possession is one of the potential rule changes on the table:
Award possession of the ball to the defense when they create a held ball situation.
 
#30      
Can we shorten the time a coach has to replace a player that has fouled out at the end of the game???......Maybe even keep the team players from huddling with their coaches for 60 seconds while they contemplate who to put into the game for the player that has committed his 5th foul......this is basically another time out at the end of a game that has plenty of stoppages of play the last 2-3 minutes anyway and lengthens the game unnecessarily imho
 
#31      
M tipping over
Pdx
Then you'll be happy to hear that eliminating the alternating possession is one of the potential rule changes on the table:
If they go through with this rule change and the six foul rule change it creates a lot of incentive for defenses to get a bit more “handsy.” For better or worse.
 
#33      
Morrison, CO
Absolutely love the move to 6 fouls! Why would you want your best players not to play for an arbitrary number! That's terrible marketing for a sport and one more foul does not make it a hacker sport (no matter what false narrative traditionalists want to paint on this).

It kills me too see a stud have to sit for 10 minutes in the first half because of a bad call by the ref or a flop.

I think there should be no ejection after 5 or 6 or whatever. You can penalize without eliminating eligibility. Perhaps a technical foul or free throw after 5 or 6... But your best players still play.
Could just agree to not call any fouls on star players. Would be good prep for the NBA.
 
#34      
It seems like every year there are a new set of rules under contemplation. There are a number of fairly impactful ones under discussion for next year, especially ones that will impact end of game flow and strategy.

- allowing 6 fouls (limiting first half to 3)
- getting rid of the and-1 (see article)
- allowing a team to opt for a throw-in vs free-throws (important for end of game strategy)
- special rules for last couple of minutes about things like timeouts, reviews, etc
- eliminating 10 second backcourt rule
- changes to pivot rules / steps
- other minor stuff (I feel like I forgot one more important one though...)

Opening thread for discussion.

Would love to see this and advancing the ball like the NBA. Tired of seeing teams have no hope to throw full court hail mary's.
 
#36      
The more I think about it, I start to wonder why we even have a player foul limit. Leave the two techs and you're ejected, but why should a player sit out on the whim of a ref.
 
#37      
The more I think about it, I start to wonder why we even have a player foul limit. Leave the two techs and you're ejected, but why should a player sit out on the whim of a ref.

How else would you incentivize not constantly fouling?

Even if they got rid of foul limits, refs would still call fouls but players wouldn’t be afraid to foul as much.

Im guessing the amount of fouls called would go up, making the games less watchable.
 
#38      
How else would you incentivize not constantly fouling?

Even if they got rid of foul limits, refs would still call fouls but players wouldn’t be afraid to foul as much.

Im guessing the amount of fouls called would go up, making the games less watchable.
After five fouls, it's hockey style. You sit out for a prescribed amount of time (say 2 minutes) and your team doesn't get to replace you, and has to proceed shorthanded.
 
#39      
I like the inbounds instead of free throws rule.

The fouls one is interesting because it’s disqualification with 6 fouls total or 4 in one half. I think I prefer to leave it as is, but I’d be curious to see some data on fouling and game time.
 
#41      
It seems like every year there are a new set of rules under contemplation. There are a number of fairly impactful ones under discussion for next year, especially ones that will impact end of game flow and strategy.

- allowing 6 fouls (limiting first half to 3)
- getting rid of the and-1 (see article)
- allowing a team to opt for a throw-in vs free-throws (important for end of game strategy)
- special rules for last couple of minutes about things like timeouts, reviews, etc
- eliminating 10 second backcourt rule
- changes to pivot rules / steps
- other minor stuff (I feel like I forgot one more important one though...)

Opening thread for discussion.

I am OK with the 6 foul rule as this would have allowed Augie to play another minute and 36 seconds against North Carolina. Seriously though, I am against getting rid of the ten second rule since it rewards defensive effort and allows a team a chance to get back in the game without fouling constantly.
 
#42      
Instead of eliminating end of game free throws, how about giving 3 three throws instead of 2 (or even a 1 & 1)?
Old school NBA (like late 70's) had a 3 to make 2 rule. That would be a good option. Or letting the team take it out again I can live with. I wish they would do something to address the european soccer flopping that is running rampant in the game. It really hurts the flow & discourages drives to the hoop for fear of someone sliding in to take the flop. Not to mention the showboat refs who like to be drama queens when making the call.
 
#43      
Absolutely love the move to 6 fouls! Why would you want your best players not to play for an arbitrary number! That's terrible marketing for a sport and one more foul does not make it a hacker sport (no matter what false narrative traditionalists want to paint on this).

It kills me too see a stud have to sit for 10 minutes in the first half because of a bad call by the ref or a flop.

I think there should be no ejection after 5 or 6 or whatever. You can penalize without eliminating eligibility. Perhaps a technical foul or free throw after 5 or 6... But your best players still play.
HATE the move to 6 fouls! Your reasoning about watching the best players, "arbitrary number"? Why not just make no limit at all? Let 'em foul every single play? Come on! I came to see that 7'2, 380 lb guy! Let him just hack, and hack and hack! I would rather see it go to four fouls than six. I want to watch basketball, please.

If you want to see the "stud" play, then coach him to play without fouling. HOWEVER, I do agree about the flopping. To fix THAT problem, I think they need a ref sitting, watching screens from many angles, whose entire job is to watch for flops, AND, if anyone gets called for flopping, make it a technical foul. Flopping absolutely ruins the game.

Another thing, your best players DO play, if they follow the rules. YOUR ideas sound like you want wrestling on the basketball court.
 
#44      
How else would you incentivize not constantly fouling?

Even if they got rid of foul limits, refs would still call fouls but players wouldn’t be afraid to foul as much.

Im guessing the amount of fouls called would go up, making the games less watchable.
The incentive being the other team will continually shoot free throws. If the refs more consistently called intentional fouls techs like we saw this year with hack-a-kofi it wouldn't be an issue.
 
#45      
HATE the move to 6 fouls! Your reasoning about watching the best players, "arbitrary number"? Why not just make no limit at all? Let 'em foul every single play? Come on! I came to see that 7'2, 380 lb guy! Let him just hack, and hack and hack! I would rather see it go to four fouls than six. I want to watch basketball, please.

If you want to see the "stud" play, then coach him to play without fouling. HOWEVER, I do agree about the flopping. To fix THAT problem, I think they need a ref sitting, watching screens from many angles, whose entire job is to watch for flops, AND, if anyone gets called for flopping, make it a technical foul. Flopping absolutely ruins the game.

Another thing, your best players DO play, if they follow the rules. YOUR ideas sound like you want wrestling on the basketball court.
It's 1 extra foul, how is 1 extra foul the tipping point between basketball and wrestling? I'm tired of watching the best players sit out for most of the first half because the refs were baited into a flop or called a ticky tack hand check.
 
#46      
sheesh;;;; the way the game is now you might as well just sanction it by saying you do not have to dribble the ball at all.
maybe make it so you have to pass the ball or dribble after ten steps?
 
#48      
I like the inbounds instead of free throws rule.

The fouls one is interesting because it’s disqualification with 6 fouls total or 4 in one half. I think I prefer to leave it as is, but I’d be curious to see some data on fouling and game time.
The data shows that refs in the b10 call 72% more than all other officials combined. There you have it.
Source: Years of watching
 
#49      
I was wondering about that too. But I think in most cases you take your free throws, especially if you had a good shooter get fouled. But let’s say Kofi got fouled. You just take the in-bounds play, and you don’t have to pull your best players at the end of the game for specific situations.
You could still see people fouling away from the ball until they got the steal. Like the ball is inbounded and the opposing team still commits a foul against Kofi. Seems like there's a physical risk to players. Kofi would just get hit over and over in a short amount of time.
 
#50      
It's 1 extra foul, how is 1 extra foul the tipping point between basketball and wrestling? I'm tired of watching the best players sit out for most of the first half because the refs were baited into a flop or called a ticky tack hand check.
Agreed, what an overreaction. Why not eliminate players for a turnover...I mean it's them not following the rules. There exists a penalty for fouling too much... It's called the bonus. I suggested a sliding scale for penalty without taking a player out of the game.

Fouling is prone to subjectivity and human error thus making a death penalty as the end result of this is bad practice and effects the game too much. Making players spectators is too steep a penalty.