Both genders:
- Establishing a three-foot radius arc from the center of the basket, inside which a player cannot be credited with taking a charge.
- Changed terminology on intentional/flagrant fouls (penalties remain the same). An "Intentional" foul is now called a "Flagrant 1" foul. (Penalty: two free throws and possession of the ball). A "Flagrant" foul is now called a "Flagrant 2" foul. (Penalty: offending players ejected, two free throws and possession of the ball).
Women (http://bit.ly/iy9xo4):
- Move three-point line back one foot to 20'9'', equal to the men's distance.
- Experimental rule to be used in 2011-12 scrimmages and exhibition games: Institute a 10-second backcourt violation like the men's game.
Men (http://bit.ly/iUtLw6):
- In games with replay capabilities, coaches may request a review of a possible flagrant foul. If a flagrant foul is not assesed, the coach's team will be charged a timeout. If the team has no timeouts, they will be charged a technical foul.
- Clarified the enforcement of double fouls.
- A team that is late returning to the court after a timeout will issued a formal warning. After the warning, the referee will put the ball in play regardless of if the team that was warned is ready.
I think that top rule makes sense... if only because refs were calling charges that way already, or at least in some cases.
Interesting that a flagrant foul is now an ejection (if that's the way it's supposed to be read).
And I wonder if the shot clock will change to 35 seconds in the women's game if they have a 10 second violation. Anybody know why they DON'T have a back court violation? I've always thought that was curious...
And the last one, about the warning out of timeouts... I think that's totally a judgement call on the ref's part and some will be absolute jerks sticklers about it.
Quote from: PointSpecial on May 06, 2011, 02:10:10 AM
And the last one, about the warning out of timeouts... I think that's totally a judgement call on the ref's part and some will be absolute jerks sticklers about it.
True ... but on the other side of the coin, there are some coaches who will milk extra time out of a timeout to a ridiculous extent because they know that a delay-of-game warning has no teeth to it.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 06, 2011, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on May 06, 2011, 02:10:10 AM
And the last one, about the warning out of timeouts... I think that's totally a judgement call on the ref's part and some will be absolute jerks sticklers about it.
True ... but on the other side of the coin, there are some coaches who will milk extra time out of a timeout to a ridiculous extent because they know that a delay-of-game warning has no teeth to it.
This is very true as well. And, in reality, the only recourse even now is for the ref to put the ball on the floor and start counting... but this just solidifies it. Maybe it's a better thing that it's (potentially) out there. It isn't so much a new rule as an emphasis.
Quote from: PointSpecial on May 06, 2011, 02:10:10 AM
And I wonder if the shot clock will change to 35 seconds in the women's game if they have a 10 second violation. Anybody know why they DON'T have a back court violation? I've always thought that was curious...
The women should also include closely-guarded while dribbling rule; currently applies only to a held ball, not dribbled. By extension, I don't see the need for differences in any of the rules for men vs. women.
My $0.02, for what it's worth:
3-foot arc: Why do we have to be the NBA? I personally like to see agressive defense under the basket, and I feel like this would eliminate it.
Flagrant verbage: No real changes as far as I can see.
Women's 3-pt: Were too many girls making three-point shots? I'm fine keeping the line where it is.
Women's backcourt violation: Full support, do it.
Men's replay: I like the idea, but how many D3 games make use of replay?
Men's delay of game: This is good, there needs to be some sort of enforcement behind the delay rule or it won't be followed.
Not sure about girls basketball but in women's basketball the rule change was basically as follows: With the two lines on the floor, more women's basketball players were taking shots from beyond the men's line, and the percentage apparently wasn't significantly different.
my two cents worth.....
3 ft arc.....NOT - let them play - I don't see this as but something to get upset at the refs about.....even in the NBA
Flagrant Change of Language.....Yes I'm for this - play is the key word but not hurt another player
Women's 3 Point Line - ALL for this....People who watch the Women's game know they can shoot the 3 ball just like the men.
Makes the court alot cleaner for the refs....not so many lines on the floor.
Women's Backcourt Violation : DEFINITELY FOR....this should have been done 4-5 years ago....Women can dribble and play defense just like the men......They should not just test this for a year but implement this right away this year.
Timeouts being abused Rule : Yes - put some teeth into this....make coaches get there act together and run there timeouts with urgency.....Keeps the game exciting and doesn't allow for coaches to change the momentum of the game as much which was what the long timeouts were doing in my opinion (A Strategic move on coaches to slow the momentum)
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 15, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
3 ft arc.....NOT - let them play - I don't see this as but something to get upset at the refs about.....even in the NBA
The three foot arc has nothing to do with "letting them play" or not. It shouldn't change the number of calls, it simply forces the referee to call a "block" when the player is too far under the basket.
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 15, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
Women's 3 Point Line - ALL for this....People who watch the Women's game know they can shoot the 3 ball just like the men.
Makes the court alot cleaner for the refs....not so many lines on the floor.
I've definitely seen them
shoot the ball like the men, but I haven't yet seen them
make the shots like the men. ;)
my point KnightSlappy....
on the 3 point arc...... Ref's will call a charge when they see a charge.....the arc has nothing to do with it....they will not call the charge more due to the 3 point arc.....its just to confusing to expect a ref to see the line and the charge and it justs makes fans complain......so I don't like the the 3 point arc under the basket....just let the refs call the game as they see it.
as for the 3 point line....the Women have been getting better and better over time at the three ball....I'm not saying they are as good as the Men.....but there is alot of Women who can shoot it with accuracy around the 35-40% range.....so Why not get rid of all the lines on the courts floor and help the refs out and treat the Women with respect.
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 20, 2011, 03:35:55 PM
my point KnightSlappy....
on the 3 point arc...... Ref's will call a charge when they see a charge.....the arc has nothing to do with it....they will not call the charge more due to the 3 point arc.....its just to confusing to expect a ref to see the line and the charge and it justs makes fans complain......so I don't like the the 3 point arc under the basket....just let the refs call the game as they see it.
But the point is that fans have compained when there are no calls for contact under the basket. This at least defines a section on the floor within which a charge cannot occur. Sure, there will still be judgement calls (was it within the line or not) but that already occurs in other areas... did he step out, was it a 3 or a 2, etc.
The frequency will definitely be less than 3 times per game, I'd imagine... certainly not greater than that of the 3 point arc or the out of bounds line.
The heart behind it is, I think, safety... a player who goes up for a layup or a dunk needs to be able to have a chance to land and inside that 3 foot arc, they're at their highest jump... which could hurt the defender just as much.
PointSpecial..... I believe the defense should be allowed to stop an offensive player if they charge PERIOD. It really doesn't matter where. That's my point. The refs can call a charge anywhere.....why not under the basket. If the player is going up to dunk but runs over the defensive player then they should be called for the charge.....not enough charge calls are called to reward good defensive position. I believe defense is just as much apart of the game of basketball as offense. Undercutting should be a flagrant foul if it puts the offensive player in danger say in dunking.....the defensive player must be in position with both feet set. I have been a coach as well and I totally believe in putting safety first in the game of basketball but refs sometimes let things get out of control by NOT calling the foul either way......I believe more flagrant fouls need to be called when one player puts another player in danger of injury - the 3 foot arc under the basket doesn't really help this in my mind.
pop-- the rule book has specifically forbidden the defense to take charges "under the basket" (at least in men's) for some time now. The arc simply adds definition to where exactly that is.
My point again KnightSlappy......Under the basket doesn't mean 3 ft arc. Let the referees call the game for safety. Whether there is an 3 ft arc or not the referees still have to keep the game safe at times and control the game when tempers start to flare. Trust them to do there job.....don't make it impossible for them to make a call without the fans yelling at them.....
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 21, 2011, 03:31:56 AM
My point again KnightSlappy......Under the basket doesn't mean 3 ft arc. Let the referees call the game for safety. Whether there is an 3 ft arc or not the referees still have to keep the game safe at times and control the game when tempers start to flare. Trust them to do there job.....don't make it impossible for them to make a call without the fans yelling at them.....
If it doesn't mean 3 foot arc, then what does it mean? Your definition is likely different than others... and it becomes a gray area again. That defeats the purpose.
I don't really think this rule is going to affect anything in gameplay. The charge is a relatively rare play as it is.
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 21, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
I don't really think this rule is going to affect anything in gameplay. The charge is a relatively rare play as it is.
The charge is called far too infrequently for my liking (in the MIAA men's game at least). If your finger twitches while you're standing there, they're calling it a block. Such a shame actually.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on September 21, 2011, 12:57:02 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 21, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
I don't really think this rule is going to affect anything in gameplay. The charge is a relatively rare play as it is.
The charge is called far too infrequently for my liking (in the MIAA men's game at least). If your finger twitches while you're standing there, they're calling it a block. Such a shame actually.
Btw, I had the same reaction that you did on your blog post on the issue... especially the "may turn or duck to absorb shock" point.
Honestly, this is one of the rules that varies in different places in the country/in different conferences depending on how physical they allow you to play. The WIAC is, in general, a pretty physical league and has lots of contact in general... so there are quite a few no-calls with contact. There are occasionally charge calls on overtly obvious out-of-control actions where the defender is collided with and falls (such as a big man backing the defender down and knocks him over), but there needs to be an attempt at getting a charge to get one called otherwise (i.e. the defender has to be in the "charge" position to get it called...) but you're right, if they're not set, they won't get the call.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on September 20, 2011, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 15, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
3 ft arc.....NOT - let them play - I don't see this as but something to get upset at the refs about.....even in the NBA
The three foot arc has nothing to do with "letting them play" or not. It shouldn't change the number of calls, it simply forces the referee to call a "block" when the player is too far under the basket.
Quote from: d3hendrixpop50 on September 15, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
Women's 3 Point Line - ALL for this....People who watch the Women's game know they can shoot the 3 ball just like the men.
Makes the court alot cleaner for the refs....not so many lines on the floor.
I've definitely seen them shoot the ball like the men, but I haven't yet seen them make the shots like the men. ;)
This discussion got me wondering, so I went to the final NCAA stats for the past season for top ten leaders in 3 pt shooting percentage. Below is what I found. Not definitive of course, but it seems to support an argument that, at least for the best of the best, the differences between the men and the women exist but aren't that great...interesting!
(Sorry for the hard-to-read formatting - can't get the system to cooperate!)
Rank Name G 3FG 3FGA 3FG% Name G 3FG 3FGA 3FG%
Div I Women's Leaders Div I Men's Leaders
1 Cerie Mosgrove 30 78 157 49.7 Jon Diebler 37 114 227 50.2
2 Emily London 33 84 174 48.3 Robert Nyakundi 35 97 195 49.7
3 Kamile Nacickaite 32 75 157 47.8 Ashton Gibbs 31 102 208 49
4 Addie Micir 29 77 167 46.1 Scott Bamforth 31 78 160 48.8
5 Angie Bjorklund 31 73 162 45.1 Gabe Rogers 32 81 173 46.8
6 Brittany Johnson 34 85 189 45 Nemanja Mitrovic 32 93 201 46.3
7 Britteni Rice 31 71 158 44.9 Bryson Johnson 34 99 217 45.6
8 Iwalani Rodrigues 35 110 245 44.9 Jeff Ledbetter 32 99 218 45.4
9 Eryn Jones 32 73 168 43.5 Travis Bader 35 94 212 44.3
10 Ali Heller 29 58 134 43.3 Brandon Provost 31 79 179 44.1
Div II Women's Leaders Div II Men's Leaders
1 Stephanie Wagner 30 114 218 52.3 Brantley Osborne 29 73 155 47.1
2 Maurika Hickman 26 56 120 46.7 Bruce Kennedy 28 78 168 46.4
3 Kati Rausberg 28 75 161 46.6 Shane Hanson 25 68 148 45.9
4 Gianna Messina 29 78 170 45.9 John Brooks 27 84 183 45.9
5 Daryle Goldie 30 66 144 45.8 Alex Culy 28 76 169 45
6 Celeste Caudill 27 59 129 45.7 Stefan Bonneau 30 79 176 44.9
7 Katie Wolff 30 67 147 45.6 Brad Starken 27 74 166 44.6
8 Tricia Principe 26 56 123 45.5 Jordan Fortney 34 119 267 44.6
9 Brittany Huggins 32 69 155 44.5 Nate Barnes 31 106 238 44.5
10 Andrea Sisson 27 55 125 44 Jake Dastrup 31 97 218 44.5
Div III Women's Leaders Div III Men's Leaders
1 Chelsie Schweers 34 133 270 49.3 Tom Gisler 28 73 146 50
2 Alex Wilson 25 63 134 47 Skylar Tolson 27 69 138 50
3 Allie Long 27 66 144 45.8 Tony Mane 26 82 169 48.5
4 Cydni Matsuoka 28 78 171 45.6 Corey Connor 29 89 185 48.1
5 Laura Karsten 22 46 102 45.1 Matt Fiorino 23 63 131 48.1
6 Pui Sham 25 59 131 45 Anthony Trautman 29 83 174 47.7
7 Olivia Lett 33 67 150 44.7 Josh Haymore 25 81 170 47.6
8 Emily Pelletier 23 71 160 44.4 Eryk Watson 26 94 199 47.2
9 Melissa Eltzroth 22 55 124 44.4 Pj Taylor 26 88 191 46.1
10 Shelly Kilcup 24 49 111 44.1 Alex Gulotta 25 71 155 45.8
Here's what I get for the MIAA as a whole last year:
Men (8 teams): 1277-3654 , .349
Women (9 teams): 1025-3543, .289
I think, as a general rule, the women shoot too many three pointers... actually now that I'm looking at some numbers, the women probably shoot about right and perhaps the men don't shoot enough threes.
(same data pool)
men 2-pt eFG% -- .476
men overall eFG% -- .490
men 3-pt eFG% -- .524
women 2-pt eFG% -- .413
women overall eFG% -- .419
women 3-pt eFG% -- .434
We would need to take drawing fouls into account (that would happen often on two-pointers but rarely on threes), and probably also a bit of game theory, but the pure FG shooting numbers suggest that the women's mix of twos and threes might be close to ideal.
The women are only left .019 points of effective field goal percentage on the floor when they attempt a two-pointer, but the gap for the men was .048. Interesting.
I agree with the women's line. There's too many lines on the floor as it was, especially with schools that have volleyball teams as well. From what I could tell last year at women's game, most of the girls were shooting from the men's line anyways, and the percentage wasn't all that different.
Fully support 10 second backcourt rule in women's basketball. To be honest, I don't know why they haven't had that before.
Men's 3 foot arch under the basket is awful. Do we really need to be the NBA?? How many players get drafted by the NBA anyway?? 40 in a year (taking into account the 10 or so foreigners), so thats an average of 13.3 players drafted over the 3 NCAA divisions, less then 1 full team. Terrible idea.
Replay will work, but how much will it impact D-3 basketball??
Will the 10 Second backcourt rule for Women's Basketball be played that way in preseason this year in DIII? and What is the criteria from the NCAA for officially changing it based on the statistics this year?
I do know that most if not all of the SCAC basketball games are Televised on CollegeTVTicket.com so whether or not replay is provided I'm not sure......seems like it could be.
Yah, the LEC games are televised on LEC tv as well............................the only problem is that its on-line only, and the person with the camera is like 30+ feet high off the court, so replay's won't be of much help/use in the LEC. Not sure if collegeticket for the SCAC is like that or not.
Something I think is being forgotten about in the argument about the arc under the basket is the simple fact that sometimes defenders are credited for taking a charging foul when in reality they aren't in position to actually stop a player going to the basket.
If the offensive player is driving the lane, you know he is leaving the floor well before three-feet prior to the basket and by the time he get's that close to the rim he is established in the air and probably has let go of the ball. If he has gotten that close to the basket without any contact with the defensive player and then only hits him after he has completed his drive, released the ball, etc.... that shouldn't be an offensive charge if the defensive player is parked UNDER the basket.
The defensive player didn't get himself in position to stop the offensive player's drive to the basket; the player didn't get between the offensive player and the basket; the defensive player is actually out of position under the basket. The player actually only positioned himself somewhere near the basket in hopes the ref will blow the whistle. If a defender can't actually get into a position besides directly below the rim to stop a player from driving to the basket, that player should not be rewarded with drawing the charge... it isn't good defense... it's a lucky call.
As for the ten-second call in the backcourt for women's basketball... that is based on the shot clock. They haven't moved that clock up to 35 like they did in the men's game... so if the women took longer than 10 second to get across the mid-line, they were thus left with less than 20 seconds to set up the offense and score... that was punishment for taking their time. However, I am for the 10 second call in the women's game... but I also think they then have to readjust the shot-clock accordingly.
As for the 3-point arc... love the move back... but arguing because there are too many lines on the court isn't going to help. That original line either can't get taken off of some courts, anyway... or schools host high school games and it has to stay anyway... so the lines aren't going anywhere.
Are any of these new rules in effect??
I've been close to 15 NCAA games (about 7 women 8 men) and haven't noticed the rules. The next women's game I'm at (probably Wednesday afternoon) I'll have to pay attention to the 3 point shooters and where their taking the ****s from.
I do know 1 thing, I have not seen a ref use the 10 second count on a women's player in the backcourt so far.
The new three-point arc and the arc in the paint are in effect... the 10-second count for women in the backcourt was just an experiment during exhibition/preseason games.
I'm wondering if anyone has seen any effects from the new rule changes...
I watched UWSP @ York when there were 8 offensive fouls called on the Pointers in the game. A few were called on illegal screens... but no fewer than 5 were called charges.
Now, to be true, Point was attacking the basket... but the charge call became the default... it wasn't until the second half that a blocking call was made, I believe.
This may not have anything to do with the arc in the paint... but it was curious, none the less.
I've seen a ton of charges called in the few games I've watched this year. I'm also seeing the same thing in the d1 games, though. I wonder if offensive fouls are a point of emphasis for NCAA officials this year?
I think there are... I also heard an interesting point from a coach and ref last night... wondering if players think that because of the arc... if they simply put their head down and try to get to the paint first, they will get the call. The reality is that because they put their head down and drove hard, they get called for a charge because they barreled into a defensive player before they even got to the arc.
Not sure if offensive players are thinking they have the chance of getting the call to go their way or refs are watching the charges more this year (and it is about time they did, there are too many charges in the game not called in the past)... but I do appreciate the fact more calls are being made.
I watched two and a half games at the Eastern tournament. There had to have been seven charges called, only one of them was a bad call, and it was pretty close at that. In years past it's been the exact opposite. I'd rather have the charges called than not.