Proposed rules changes

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Proposed rules changes

Post by Geezaldinho on Thu May 12, 2011 12:06 am

Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

Anybody know how they are going to determine who a secondary defender is? We play lots of zone.


They don't call the current area under the basket. How will this change anything?

Men’s basketball rules committee recommends
restricted area arc

By Greg Johnson
NCAA.org

The NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee on Wednesday recommended a restricted area arc three feet from the center of basket where a secondary defender cannot legally take a charge.

Restricted Arc


The restricted arc would take effect in the 2011-12 season in all three divisions if it is approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel.



The restricted arc, which must be clearly marked and discernable in the lane, would take effect in the 2011-12 season in all three divisions if it is approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel. That group, which considers all proposals from playing-rules committees, has a conference call on June 9. No rules proposals are final until the oversight panel approves them.

The idea of a restricted area arc has gathered momentum over the last few years and was thoroughly vetted at the rules committee meeting held Sunday through Wednesday in Indianapolis.

“We have been very deliberate with our research and consideration of this rule. We believe this is the natural progression from all the data and feedback we’ve received,” said Notre Dame head coach Mike Brey, who chairs the committee. “A high percentage of coaches and administrators favored a visual mark on the floor. Our committee was unanimous in voting this into the game.”

In 2009, the committee created an unmarked area directly under the basket where a secondary defender could not legally take a charge.

By proposing the arc, committee members hope to limit the number of collisions near the basket on charge/block plays. The committee considers the matter as a student-athlete safety issue.

Last season, the committee experimented with a restricted area arc two feet from the center of the basket during multi-team events and exhibition games. The experiment extended the previous year’s rules change that made it illegal for a secondary defender to take a charge underneath the basket.

“The data and feedback indicated that two feet wasn’t enough, but it helped remove some plays at the basket,” said Brey.

Some basketball stakeholders wanted visible markings to better define the area where a secondary defender can legally take a charge.

After seeing the arc painted on the court and reviewing data, the committee recommended a three-foot arc as being the suitable distance for the college game where the lane is 12-feet wide.

“The arc at this distance fits the dimensions of our court,” Brey said. “We feel this is a rule that can help offensive players get to the basket and limit physical play.”

Fouls language

In other action, the committee changed the nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul.

The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used in these situations. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be a player who swings an elbow and makes non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball.

Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.

“We want to be clear on the language so no one is confused,” Brey said. “The reason we used intentional last year was to increase the penalty. It didn’t have anything to do with intent.”

An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be a player who swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.

Timeouts

Committee members had a lengthy discussion on a proposal that would have allowed head coaches to call timeouts only during dead ball periods.

One area of concern for coaches calling timeouts during live-ball situations was the loose-ball scrums that occur during games.

Examples shown during the meeting amplified the dilemma officials face in these scenarios. They have to discern if it is indeed the head coach requesting the timeout and make sure his team has possession of the ball when the timeout was called.

The concept wasn’t recommended by the committee, which felt head coaches should still be allowed to call timeouts during live-ball situations.

The committee requested that continued education be provided to officials to handle these scenarios.

Other recommendations

The committee is recommending that coaches can request a monitor review of Flagrant 2 fouls by officials at any time during a game. If the replay shows that the coach was wrong, his team is charged a timeout. If the team has no more timeouts, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts. Officials continue to be able to go to the monitor to check these fouls without a request from the coach.
The committee also talked about the rare “double foul” and agreed that in cases where two fouls occur of differing severity, both fouls will be enforced. For example, Player A reaches in and commits a common foul against Player B. Player B responds with an elbow that is considered a Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 foul. If in the bonus, both players will shoot free throws with the lane cleared, with Team A shooting last and receiving the ball. Previously, this scenario was considered as offsetting fouls.
In another matter, the committee agreed that if a team is late returning to the court for play after a timeout, officials will formally warn the team. Any subsequent time that the team is late taking the court for play, the official will whistle for play regardless if the team that has received a formal warning is ready. No technical fouls will be assessed in these situations.
In other committee business, members nominated St. Peter’s head coach John Dunne as the new chair of the group.


And I'm dying to see how they call a non-excessive foul above the shoulders. The ref should have to take one to help him make up his mind. I thought it was a foul if you swung and missed.

Geezaldinho
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 10316
Location : Hopefully, having a Malbec on the square in Cafayate, AR
Registration date : 2007-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Guest on Thu May 12, 2011 12:44 am

Just another rule to make the college game look more like the NBA game if you ask me. It's more paint on the floor and more rules to follow. Although I love the fact that the men's 3-point line is further out, I hate seeing it and the old one because it makes the court look cluttered. I could just be very nitpicky. I wish college, NBA, and international rules could just be similar.

I am guessing a secondary defender is just a second person trying to make a defensive play. So, no two people can fall over and get a charge called?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Geezaldinho on Thu May 12, 2011 12:48 am

PrideofthePilots wrote:
I am guessing a secondary defender is just a second person trying to make a defensive play. So, no two people can fall over and get a charge called?

Nobody plays defense 1v1 on a ball handler any more. Everybody is always rotating to the ball. If two guys are on the ball carrier, how is the primary defender determined? What if he gets there first but is less active or starts rotating away? If the ball handler changes direction, is the same player still the primary?

It seems like hocus pocus with no real meaning. Besides, why should you be able to run over a guy just because he didn't chase you all the way down the floor? I thought that was the whole idea of team defense. The guy ought to learn to pass.

Like I said, the calls under the basket now are coin flips.

Geezaldinho
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 10316
Location : Hopefully, having a Malbec on the square in Cafayate, AR
Registration date : 2007-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by up7587 on Thu May 12, 2011 11:00 am

Purplegeezer wrote:Like I said, the calls under the basket now are coin flips.
Seems to me like they always have been coin flips anyway. Sometimes it's a block, sometimes it's a charge. Rules Pull Hair

up7587
Draft Pick
Draft Pick

Number of posts : 3522
Age : 62
Location : Portland
Registration date : 2007-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by DaTruRochin on Thu May 12, 2011 8:00 pm

That mini arc is going to chop about 5 points a game off of Duke's tally...

DaTruRochin
Administrator
Administrator

Number of posts : 3576
Location : Boston, MA
Registration date : 2007-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by DTLegend on Fri May 13, 2011 6:17 am

So I may not know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to these rule changes but let me try to say a few points from what I understand. In terms of "more paint on the floor and more rules to follow" there aren't any new rules when it comes to the arc. The rule change happened a couple years ago and the arc will allow the referees to have a visual of where a charge has to take place. I personally like the arc. I think it gives a little bit of clarity between a block and a charge and makes it less 50-50. As far as the term secondary defender, this language is used, or at least this is my guess, because a primary defender can still take a charge inside the arc. Thats confusing, let me give an example. Lets say the ball is thrown into the post and the offensive player is backing in, he drops his shoulder and the defender takes the contact and falls down. It wouldn't matter if the defender is outside the arc, that is still a charge. However if the offensive player spins around the primary defender and runs into the help defense while they are inside the arc, it is a defensive foul. The arc is mainly used as someone is driving to the basket at which case the primary defender is already out of position. At least that is how I interpreted it.

Just a note about the three-point lines PrideofthePilots, they need to have both because the distance is different for the women and the men. That is why they didn't get rid of the old line.

DTLegend
Pilot Nation Regular
Pilot Nation Regular

Number of posts : 367
Age : 28
Location : Denver
Registration date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Geezaldinho on Fri May 13, 2011 6:38 am

I disagree. The current rule just says "under the basket" and was interpreted differently by every ref, often differently by the same ref every time it occurred. Reading the rule strictly, you have to be entirely under the 18" circle of the rim.

Mostly it wasn't called at all. Here's a quote in January by the NCAA director of referees.

"I've been to 35 games in person and I have yet to see that play occur meeting the parameters of the rule," said John Adams, the NCAA's coordinator for men's basketball officiating. "I watch games at home with DVR with a remote in my hand and run a play three or four times and still can't get a guy standing completely under the basket."

It was called so seldom that when it was called, there was no discernible difference from the times it wasn't. I'm with the director of referees, standing completely under the basket is a practical impossibility.


When they experimented with two feet, (Actually 15" from the edge of the rim - no lines) there were NO calls made in those games.

Now it is 3 foot with lines. ( again, that's actually 2'3" from the edge of the rim)

So, three different applications ( or non- applications) of a similar concept, but different radii.
I think this is a humorous tug of war between the rules committee who cant write a coherent rule and the referees asking for a change in rule that is so arcane even they can't figure out how to enforce it. In five years, the arc will be extended to the three point line. then the court will again look like it does now.

Geezaldinho
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 10316
Location : Hopefully, having a Malbec on the square in Cafayate, AR
Registration date : 2007-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by onetouchfutbol on Fri May 13, 2011 10:29 am

I think that eventually the NBA rules and college rules will be more similar. For example, the NBA started to allow zone defenses a few years ago, and I´m not sure if there are as many illegal defense calls as there used to be. I think that eventually the play around the basket with illegal defense calls, charges, and 3 in the key calls will start to even out between college and the pros with rule changes like this one. But, I think the international rules will continue to be dramatically different...

onetouchfutbol
All-American
All-American

Number of posts : 2203
Age : 45
Location : Seattle, WA
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by DTLegend on Fri May 13, 2011 10:39 am

I understand that current rule, or the rule made in 2009 said "directly under the basket" which rarely occurs, but it is the same rule as the NBA just different interpretations of "under the basket". This rule is similar to the 3-point rule as in if you shoot behind a line you get three points, but the line is different distances depending on the level you play. So the NCAA had it's restricted are directly beneath the hoop (currently) and the NBA's arc sits 4' from the center of the hoop. The NCAA hopes to move their arc to 3' from the center and thus will help clear up a rule that has been very unclear for a long time.

While I understand standing under the rim is very rare, I've seen it called a charge, and that is unfair to the offensive player. I've also seen it reversed where a defender is called for a block because the referee viewed their position too far under the hoop. With the addition of the arc, collisions near the key should be easier to call.

So in my opinion, I like the arc, I think that it helps the game, and its installation into the college game will better allow players to learn rules that are applied in the professional and international games.

DTLegend
Pilot Nation Regular
Pilot Nation Regular

Number of posts : 367
Age : 28
Location : Denver
Registration date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Guest on Fri May 13, 2011 12:19 pm

purplepride13 wrote:
Just a note about the three-point lines PrideofthePilots, they need to have both because the distance is different for the women and the men. That is why they didn't get rid of the old line.

Yeah, I realize that. It can just be confusing when watching the women's games anywhere. That is all I am trying to say about that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The arc is in for 2011

Post by Geezaldinho on Thu May 26, 2011 2:17 pm

the basketball rules committee was busy last week and made a bunch of changes for both the men's and women's game. Pretty amazing tht they were able to do it on the phone, considering the normal NCAA pace.

The 3' arc is in (one more foot than presently), but schools have a year to paint the arc on the floor in divisions 2 and 3.

the women will use the principle with the 3' arc also, and they get to shoot 3's from the men's arc this year. Can you erase the silly inner arc?

and we now have a Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 foul for using the elbow. Refs who couldnt make the call now also get to err in deciding what excessive is. when i played Box Lacrosse years ago, the presence of blood or broken bones was the decider. refs wont call it anyway, because ejection is mandatory.

the women will experiment with the 10 second clock while retaining the 30 second shot clock.



The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel during its conference call on Monday approved adding a visible restricted-area arc three feet from the center of the basket where a secondary defender cannot legally take a charge in Division I men’s and women’s games.

The panel delayed implementation of the arc until the 2012-13 season for Divisions II and III to allow those schools time to plan and place the restricted-area arc in their home arenas. For the upcoming season, secondary defenders in Divisions II and III men’s games will not be allowed to draw a charge in an unmarked area directly beneath the basket, which was the men’s rule in 2010-11. In Divisions II and III women’s games, secondary defenders will not be allowed to draw a charge in an unmarked area three feet from the center of the basket.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the final approval body for playing rules proposals from sport and rules committees. The panel of representatives from all three NCAA divisions convenes periodically to consider recommendations.

The three-foot restricted area was recommended by the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules Committees in an attempt to limit the number of collisions near the basket on charge/block plays. The arc is also intended to provide some benefit to offensive players who have legally gained an advantage.

Last season, the men’s committee experimented with a restricted-area arc two feet from the center of the basket during multi-team events and exhibition games. The experiment extended the previous year’s rules change that made it illegal for a secondary defender to take a charge underneath the basket.

Some basketball stakeholders wanted visible markings to better define the area where a secondary defender can legally take a charge.

After seeing the arc painted on the court and reviewing data, the committee recommended a three-foot arc as being the suitable distance for the college game, where the lane is 12-feet wide.

Because the visible arc is not being applied in Divisions II and III until the 2012-13 season, though, officials in men’s games in those divisions will revert to the previous “directly underneath the basket” parameter and wait until the arc is actually on the floor the following year to start calling the rule three feet out.

The Women’s Basketball Rules Committee had not previously operated with a restricted area at all, so when that group began discussing an arc, it did so with the three-foot distance in mind from the start. As a result, the way women’s officials will deal with the delay in implementation of the arc for Divisions II and III games is different from their men’s officiating counterparts, since there was no rule to revert to as there was for the men. Thus, the women are moving to the three-foot distance immediately instead of teaching the rule one way this year and another way in subsequent seasons.

Women’s three-point line moved

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel also approved moving the women’s three-point line in all three divisions back a foot to 20 feet, 9 inches for the 2011-12 season.

The Women’s Basketball Rules Committee made the recommendation after examining the distance of the shot for the last several years. Last season, the committee asked teams to track the number of three-point field goal attempts taken behind the 20-foot, 9-inch line and the current 19-foot, 9-inch line during exhibition games and 40-minute game-like scrimmages.

Data from 194 institutions (100 in Division I, 57 in Division II and 34 in Division III) showed that most of the attempts and makes came from behind the 20-foot, 9-inch line.

Of the shots tracked, teams were 1,046 of 3,203 (33 percent) from behind the 20-foot, 9-inch line. The data also revealed that teams were 546 for 1,823 (30 percent) between 19 feet, 9 inches and 20 feet, 9 inches.

Fouls language

The panel also approved a change in nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul in both men’s and women’s basketball. The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.

An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.

Women’s experimental rule

Women’s basketball teams in all three divisions will test a 10-second half-court rule in closed scrimmages and exhibition games next season. The women’s rules committee wants teams to report the number of turnovers, fouls, points and other relevant data to determine the effect the rule has on play.

Proponents believe adding a 10-second count to cross half court would increase the tempo and strategy of the game with more teams extending their defense. Opponents believe it would add more stoppages, such as turnovers and fouls by teams that are trying to press full court.

There was some sentiment that if a 10-second back court rule is added to the women’s game, the shot clock should be increased to 35 seconds from the current 30. For purposes of the experimental rule, a 30-second shot clock will be used.

Other men’s and women’s basketball rules changes

The panel approved a change regarding coaches being able to request a monitor review of flagrant fouls. In the women’s game, a coach can request a review of the monitor to determine whether a Flagrant 1 foul for elbow contact or a Flagrant 2 foul occurred. In the men’s game, the change allows coaches to request a review for a potential Flagrant 2 foul that was not detected. If it is determined that no such foul occurred in a men’s or women’s game, the team requesting the monitor review will be charged a timeout. If no timeouts remain, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts.
Another approved change centers on the rare “double foul.” In scenarios where two fouls occur of differing penalties, both fouls will be enforced. For example, Player A reaches in and commits a common foul against Player B. Player B responds with an elbow that is considered a Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 foul. If in the bonus, both players will shoot free throws with the lane cleared, with Team A shooting last and receiving the ball. Previously, this scenario was considered as offsetting fouls.
The panel approved a rules change intended to administer timeouts more efficiently. If a team does not return to the court after the first horn, officials will formally warn the team for delay of game. Any subsequent time that the team is late taking the court for play, the official will make the ball ready for play regardless of whether the team that has received a formal warning is ready. No technical fouls will be assessed in these situations.


discuss.


Last edited by Purplegeezer on Thu May 26, 2011 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

Geezaldinho
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 10316
Location : Hopefully, having a Malbec on the square in Cafayate, AR
Registration date : 2007-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by up7587 on Thu May 26, 2011 3:07 pm

In the men’s game, the change allows coaches to request a review for a potential Flagrant 2 foul that was not detected. If it is determined that no such foul occurred in a men’s or women’s game, the team requesting the monitor review will be charged a timeout. If no timeouts remain, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts.
So, how long can you wait before questioning the no-call? If you are correct, do they then erase anything that occurred after the no-call flagrant, and set the clock back to the time of the foul? What about other missed calls?

Let the officials call the game, and if they aren't good enough, train them better or replace them. Stop with the second guessing. My 2 Cents

up7587
Draft Pick
Draft Pick

Number of posts : 3522
Age : 62
Location : Portland
Registration date : 2007-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Guest on Thu May 26, 2011 5:16 pm

I suppose that I like these changes for the most part. Especially moving the women's 3 point line out.

Thoughts on potentially cutting the men's shot clock down to 30 as well? I would like that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by Rochin54 on Fri May 27, 2011 8:49 am

I hate to say it, but I agree with 7587. Just play the game. These rule changes remind me of a bunch of elected officials making laws for things that don't need fixing.

I also resoundingly say no to decreasing the shot clock to 30. That will result in more one on one plays at the end of the clock and put a premium on the individual instead of the team. Just my two cents! Cheers!

Rochin54
First man off the Bench
First man off the Bench

Number of posts : 668
Location : Suburbia
Registration date : 2007-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposed rules changes

Post by DaTruRochin on Fri May 27, 2011 11:03 am

Rochin54 wrote:I also resoundingly say no to decreasing the shot clock to 30. That will result in more one on one plays at the end of the clock and put a premium on the individual instead of the team.

Agreed. Shot clocks were only created to make the game faster and increase scoring to make the game more TV friendly. The 35 is more than enough to get adequate scoring, have ball movement AND allow for the variety of styles that really makes college hoops more interesting. As much as it pains me to watch Bennett ball or whatever, the part that I love about the college game is just how much variety you have to play the same game. Shorter shot clock just makes for more bad shots, and ultimately gives a huge advantage to teams based on pure athleticism.

I can kind of see the benefit of the "charging arc" as far as safety is concerned, and how it might help officials make calls visually, but everything else just seems to add further levels of complication. As has been mentioned, it seems like instead of adding new clarifications in a bi-law perhaps more time and money should be spent recruiting new officials and training the ones we have.

DaTruRochin
Administrator
Administrator

Number of posts : 3576
Location : Boston, MA
Registration date : 2007-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum