Proposed 2011-12 rule changes

[Just Bill]

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.

[John Gleich]

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.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

[John Gleich]

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.

[ronk]

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.

[Captain Bob]

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.

[Pat Coleman]

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.

[d3hendrixpop50]

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)

[KnightSlappy]

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.

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. 

[d3hendrixpop50]

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.

[John Gleich]

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.

[d3hendrixpop50]

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.

[KnightSlappy]

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.

[d3hendrixpop50]

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.....

[John Gleich]

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.