This already happens...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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Drew Timme would hate that rule!What about maybe making it a technical foul to yell "And one!!!!" after every shot? I would be down with that.
I don't like all the fouling at the end of games, either, but I would prefer that Elam ending rule that TBT used to what is potentially being proposed here.
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.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.
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 infractionsWhat if they do that the whole game and not just after 5 fouls?
Or you could allow them to replace them but the player who committed needs to sit.
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.
Still wouldn't have helped us. Calipari doesn't follow rules.Only one assistant coach can be poached from the same team per rolling 12 month period, beginning next year.
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.
Still wouldn't have helped us. Calipari doesn't follow rules.
. 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?