Potential Rule Changes for 2021-22

#52      
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.

But wouldn’t that cause the exact thing we are trying to avoid? If one team gets hot, and goes up by 10, the other team will use their unlimited fouls to force the leading team to the line constantly in an effort to catch up.

Except, now the phenomenon of “2 minutes of game time lasts 20 minutes” might start half way through the first half.

Fouling is breaking the rules. It’s good to limit how many times a player can break the rules.

The problem isn’t that there is a limit in place, it’s that the refs are bad/inconsistent with how they call fouls.

Maybe all the B1G universities need to dump some of their millions of dollars into a pool and create an organization that trains, pays well, and holds accountable the officials and is transparent about blown calls and remedial action.
 
#53      
But wouldn’t that cause the exact thing we are trying to avoid? If one team gets hot, and goes up by 10, the other team will use their unlimited fouls to force the leading team to the line constantly in an effort to catch up.

Except, now the phenomenon of “2 minutes of game time lasts 20 minutes” might start half way through the first half.

Fouling is breaking the rules. It’s good to limit how many times a player can break the rules.

The problem isn’t that there is a limit in place, it’s that the refs are bad/inconsistent with how they call fouls.

Maybe all the B1G universities need to dump some of their millions of dollars into a pool and create an organization that trains, pays well, and holds accountable the officials and is transparent about blown calls and remedial action.
You can still do that, there are plenty of bodies on the bench that have plenty of fouls to give if that's your strategy, yet you still don't see it happening often.
 
#55      
Love the idea of the Elam ending. Set a score, and let the players play it out. I watched the endings of a few TBT games to see how that works, and I love it. Not quite as much fun as 3-on-3 hockey, but pretty close.
 
#56      
You can still do that, there are plenty of bodies on the bench that have plenty of fouls to give if that's your strategy, yet you still don't see it happening often.

But then you risk having young/inexperienced players on the floor for stretches, hoping for a dead ball to get them out or burning a valuable timeout.

The reason they don’t do that now is because that player (the end of bench fouler) also would have to play offense and would most likely be over matched.

If the point is to catch up, you don’t want a liability on the offensive end of the floor.

Allow your starters to have unlimited fouls and you bet coaches will use them to slow down a hot shooting team.
 
#58      
Love the idea of the Elam ending. Set a score, and let the players play it out. I watched the endings of a few TBT games to see how that works, and I love it. Not quite as much fun as 3-on-3 hockey, but pretty close.
I saw that House of 'Paign and Always a Brave (Bradley) will be co-hosting the TBT in Peoria this year. Also, it looks like House of 'Paign is rated first in the TBT power rankings.
 
#59      
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.
Fix the flop, no problem. Allowing more fouls still is a bad idea.
 
#60      
It'll never happen, but I'd love if they just outlawed the charge call. I've never been a fan of "taking a charge". It's really not a defensive play at all. All you are doing is hoping someone runs over you and not making any play on the ball. So if you got rid of the charge, you'd have guys at least attempting to play defense, block shots, contest at the rim.
 
#61      
Paducah, Ky
It'll never happen, but I'd love if they just outlawed the charge call. I've never been a fan of "taking a charge". It's really not a defensive play at all. All you are doing is hoping someone runs over you and not making any play on the ball. So if you got rid of the charge, you'd have guys at least attempting to play defense, block shots, contest at the rim.
The charge call is a part of BB , but I would be ok if they extended the area where its a block call....maybe designate the entire paint area as extended.....
 
#62      
It'll never happen, but I'd love if they just outlawed the charge call. I've never been a fan of "taking a charge". It's really not a defensive play at all. All you are doing is hoping someone runs over you and not making any play on the ball. So if you got rid of the charge, you'd have guys at least attempting to play defense, block shots, contest at the rim.
Are we talking all offensive fouls or just what we think of as a guy flopping?
 
#63      
Are we talking all offensive fouls or just what we think of as a guy flopping?

Not all offensive fouls. But I'd get rid of charge calls where it's simply a guy sliding over waiting for someone to run them over. I wouldn't call it a block or charge. That's just a play on. It's just not a defensive play in my mind. I'd also stop calling so many illegal screen calls on big guys that take part 45 feet from the basket.
 
#64      
Not all offensive fouls. But I'd get rid of charge calls where it's simply a guy sliding over waiting for someone to run them over. I wouldn't call it a block or charge. That's just a play on. It's just not a defensive play in my mind. I'd also stop calling so many illegal screen calls on big guys that take part 45 feet from the basket.
Good point on the play where a guy is sliding over, I agree with you on that. I disagree on the illegal screen thing, but that's a minor detail. lol
 
#65      
Like to see the rule of verticality called on offensive players as well as defensive players. Shooters jumping into defensive players and/or falling down after three point attempts should not be called fouls. Also don’t like bigs (even if they are ours) butt driving the defensive man out of position.
 
#67      
Not all offensive fouls. But I'd get rid of charge calls where it's simply a guy sliding over waiting for someone to run them over. I wouldn't call it a block or charge. That's just a play on. It's just not a defensive play in my mind. I'd also stop calling so many illegal screen calls on big guys that take part 45 feet from the basket.
I like the play on approach. Especially on the flops where the guy slides over & protects himself from the nut shot. If he doesn't have arms extended in a defensive position then he shouldn't get the call. Also, I've thought that if the refs just ate the whistle, about the 2nd time the guy flopped & then got dunked on with no call, the flop would magically decrease in frequency.
 
#69      
All these comments make me think you just want running from end to end dunking and dunking. If you take away defensive plays, how will you ever stop a guy?

You take away a charge call, how can you defend? Everyone will just rush the defender.

Agreed. If there is no charge, just get a full head of steam from the inbound/outlet pass and point at the hoop.

If anyone gets in your way, barrel over them. It’s either a no call or a block (in a charge-less world) and there is high likelihood of people getting hurt if they DO try to step in front.

The charge isn’t just an offensive foul, it’s a safety measure as well.
 
#70      
Fresh idea here... Make it a technical foul on any coach or player on the bench to speak to the referee. A total of two technicals from any combination of the above means the head coach is ejected from the game and continues to work down the coaching ladder for additional technicals. In addition don't give coaches the power to get rid of a certain ref they don't like. My premise is that when refs don't get worked or intimidated by the coaches they will call a better game. Finally allow an independent committee to evaluate the work of the referees every year and get rid of the bad ones...

What do you think?
 
#71      
Fresh idea here... Make it a technical foul on any coach or player on the bench to speak to the referee. A total of two technicals from any combination of the above means the head coach is ejected from the game and continues to work down the coaching ladder for additional technicals. In addition don't give coaches the power to get rid of a certain ref they don't like. My premise is that when refs don't get worked or intimidated by the coaches they will call a better game. Finally allow an independent committee to evaluate the work of the referees every year and get rid of the bad ones...

What do you think?
Players are ALWAYS talking to the refs. Sometimes its just friendly chatting, sometimes its complaining and sometimes is asking a legitimate question about a violation. Coaches too. I have a hard time believing that refs would improve with no accountability.
 
#72      
Players are ALWAYS talking to the refs. Sometimes its just friendly chatting, sometimes its complaining and sometimes is asking a legitimate question about a violation. Coaches too. I have a hard time believing that refs would improve with no accountability.
Good points... Just to clarify I was talking about only the players on the bench. You may be quite right on the accountability issue. I've always wondered though if coaches like izzo who are more influential have power with the conference to get rid of certain refs.
 
#73      
Good points... Just to clarify I was talking about only the players on the bench. You may be quite right on the accountability issue. I've always wondered though if coaches like izzo who are more influential have power with the conference to get rid of certain refs.
Almost forgot... If accountability is based on an independent review by a committee that reviews the tapes from games where there are complaints by coaches, it seems to me that accountability could be built in to the process.
 
#74      
All these comments make me think you just want running from end to end dunking and dunking. If you take away defensive plays, how will you ever stop a guy?

You take away a charge call, how can you defend? Everyone will just Bill rush the defender.

Most charges happen with a defensive player standing in the lane, while the offensive player has left their feet going for a layup. Offensive player, many times after the ball has left his hand, makes contact with the defensive player, defensive player falls backward, and a charge is called. I would not call this play a charge on the offensive player. If you didn't have the charge call here, what would happen is that defensive player instead of remaining grounded hoping to simply get ran over, would instead jump with the offensive player in order to contest the shot. I'd rather see that.

You can stop people by attempting to contest their shots. I see what you are saying in situations where you are talking about guys dribbling into other players. I'm more talking about after an offensive player has left his feet, that there can no longer be a charge called in that situation. It's really no different than the halo rule under the basket, but I'd expand it to the entire court. Once the offensive player has left his feet, defensively you don't get a charge call there.
 
#75      
Most charges happen with a defensive player standing in the lane, while the offensive player has left their feet going for a layup. Offensive player, many times after the ball has left his hand, makes contact with the defensive player, defensive player falls backward, and a charge is called. I would not call this play a charge on the offensive player. If you didn't have the charge call here, what would happen is that defensive player instead of remaining grounded hoping to simply get ran over, would instead jump with the offensive player in order to contest the shot. I'd rather see that.

You can stop people by attempting to contest their shots. I see what you are saying in situations where you are talking about guys dribbling into other players. I'm more talking about after an offensive player has left his feet, that there can no longer be a charge called in that situation. It's really no different than the halo rule under the basket, but I'd expand it to the entire court. Once the offensive player has left his feet, defensively you don't get a charge call there.
I might be a little more onboard with THAT suggestion. However, removing the charge call is not the answer. The answer is how it is enforced. Taking away the charge call is definitely a horrible idea. Calling charges after the player has already become airborne I thought was already not allowed. So, I yahooed (I don't "Google" anything) and found this:

The rules oversight committee approved the following guidelines "to help better administer these rules." From the release:

Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul. Secondary defenders (help defenders) moving forward or to the side are also in violation and those should be blocking fouls. Contact that is “through the chest” is not de facto proof of a charge. The rule in its entirety must be considered before determining a foul
.

So, it would seem that the rules are already in place for what you are suggesting. It sounds like the refs need to interpret actions better.