Rules committee has spoken

Some interesting stuff here......still wish they had gone to a 20 second reset after A common foul but baby steps I guess.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-gets-it-right

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...ond-shot-clock

Teams will only get four timeouts instead of five, and only three can be carried into the second half. Officials will also make an effort to resume play faster after a timeout or a player fouling out.

This article does a good job of covering all the proposed changes:

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...s-improve-game

Some highlights...
.

• Expanding the 3-foot arc to a 4-foot arc to reduce collisions at the hoop.
• One less second half timeout, and timeouts called within 30 seconds of a TV timeout will take the place of the TV timeout. So if you call one at 16:30, now that is the TV timeout, any time until the TV timeout would occur (first stoppage at that under-4 period).
• Coaches cannot make live ball timeouts...does that mean no taking it across the halfcourt stripe then calling timeout?
• Only 10 seconds to get the ball across the timeline. As I read that, if you hold a team for 9 seconds and they call timeout, they better throw the subsequent inbounds past the timeline. However, if there are no live ball timeouts, is it relevant? The no live ball timeout is really messing with my head.
• Refs can penalize fake fouls. Good thing Gasser and Kaminsky graduated...guessing this is Wisconsin inspired ;)
• Shot clock violations are reviewable on monitor...also Wisconsin inspired ;)
• Experimenting with adding an extra foul in postseason play. Possibly for NIT/CBI? I don't like this...the extra foul should be in overtime. For a 40 minute game, 5 is fine, but they should allow a sixth if it goes an extra frame.

You are misinterpreting the "no live ball timeouts". Currently, a coach can directly call a timeout. Now it has to be the player on the court to make the timeout call. The coach cannot directly make that call to the official.

Okay...that makes way more sense. Thanks for the catch, because that was really messing with me. Buzz in particular will hate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

You are misinterpreting the "no live ball timeouts". Currently, a coach can directly call a timeout. Now it has to be the player on the court to make the timeout call. The coach cannot directly make that call to the official.

---

Like that rule, will require players to have a better understanding of the situation, will be interesting though to see how many players pull a Chris Webber.

Still want to see the lane widened and 3-point line moved out to FIBA standards. I bet that happens in two years when the committee makes their next rule change recommendations.

The change I would have loved to see would have said that any foul (shooting or not, in bonus or not) during the last two minutes of a game leads to a free throw attempt and continued possession of the ball. I think that would put an end to all the intentional fouls that are never called intentional fouls in the last couple of minutes.

I've seen too many games that had a half dozen (or more) fouls in the last minute of game time. It can take as long as 20 minutes - between fouls and time outs - to play the last two minutes.

Still really sucks that the first team timeout called in thd 2nd half is automatically a full timeout.

I'd like to see a dead ball timeout after a made basket advance the ball to halfcourt. Better chance of late game dramatics.

I'm surprised I hear so many people who like that. It feels like moving from the 20 yard line to field goal range just by using a timeout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MU/Panther

I'm surprised I hear so many people who like that. It feels like moving from the 20 yard line to field goal range just by using a timeout.

---

It's difficult to use a football analogy for basketball because the objectives are different, but I like it simply because it can add end of game dramatics. Contrived sure, but not too much so IMO.

I'm fine with it either way, but it doesn't seemed earned. Hinse the football fealing.

Apparently the five-second, closely-guarded rule has been eliminated.

I liked that rule. It prevented one player from dribbling, dribbling, dribbling, dribbling, dribbling with the aim of eventually making a move to the hoop. In short, it sometimes forced ball movement as opposed to one player dominating the ball.

The other thing it did was reward good defense.

I'm not quite sure I understand the motivation behind eliminating this rule as I don't see how its elimination will increase scoring. In fact, I think the rule's primary impact was to make the game more interesting to watch. I would rather watch a team pass the ball than have one player dribble ad infinitum.

It's interesting that this rule change has drawn little commentary. I'm curious how others feel about the change. For me, hell I would have been in favor of making it a four-second, closely guarded rule instead of five. Speed the game's flow up a little.

I don't care much either way, because how often is a five second closely guarded rule even called? My guess is way less than once per game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

I don't care much either way, because how often is a five second closely guarded rule even called? My guess is way less than once per game.

---

That is only looking at it one way. Without the rule, ball movement could suffer - more one on one type plays, rather than move the ball. Without the rule, there is no consequence. Everyone knew of the 5 second closely guarded rule and avoided it, which is why it is rarely called.

Heck, if you take your point, do away with the 5 second inbound, 10 second to cross half court and 3 second rules as well. They are seldom called either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

That is only looking at it one way. Without the rule, ball movement could suffer - more one on one type plays, rather than move the ball. Without the rule, there is no consequence. Everyone knew of the 5 second closely guarded rule and avoided it, which is why it is rarely called.

---

That's a really good point. I guess we will have to see how it pans out.

When they changed the five second rule a few years ago, I always thought it was kind of a joke. It used to be easier to get a five second call. Now, a point guard could stand there with the ball and dribble and waste time. All he needed was a little separation. With the way that guys could handle the ball, it's pretty easy for a guard to start and stop to get separation. In my opinion, eliminating the 5 second rule as it stands now will not affect the game at all. It will probably allow the refs to concentrate on other things.

Might be lots of free throws this year.....

@KevinMcNamara33: The can't-touch-anyone-anymore college basketball rules are going to drive fans - and Ed @CoachCooleyPC - crazy this year.

@JonRothstein: No question. Games could last 2.5 hours. https://t.co/sm1BgKH2Kb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markedman

Might be lots of free throws this year.....

@KevinMcNamara33: The can't-touch-anyone-anymore college basketball rules are going to drive fans - and Ed @CoachCooleyPC - crazy this year.

@JonRothstein: No question. Games could last 2.5 hours. https://t.co/sm1BgKH2Kb

---

As long as it leads to a much more watchable game down the road, you got to take the short-term pain of adjusting to the new rules. I just hope that officials stay the course and do not kowtow to the complaining coaches and hot take central from the media.

Foul ridden games are not watchable either. To me, consistency was always more the issue than physical play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Foul ridden games are not watchable either. To me, consistency was always more the issue than physical play.

---

You will have to live through some foul ridden games to clean up the play. Once you call games properly, coaches will have to adjust and the game will become much more aesthetically pleasing.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I hate those games in which three or four starters on each team spend major minutes on the bench due to foul trouble, and games end up being wars of attrition in terms of players fouling out.

Depth could be critical this year. Guys like Wally, Matt, and Sacar could see significant mpg at times this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warriorfan4life

You will have to live through some foul ridden games to clean up the play. Once you call games properly, coaches will have to adjust and the game will become much more aesthetically pleasing.

---

Yeah I am not sure I buy into that. As I said before, I didn't have much problem with the way most games were called before. I thought consistency was a problem more than anything. And changing the rules and parts of emphasis every off season doesn't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Yeah I am not sure I buy into that. As I said before, I didn't have much problem with the way most games were called before. I thought consistency was a problem more than anything. And changing the rules and parts of emphasis every off season doesn't help.

---

I agree that there needs to consistency, but that consistency will hopefully lead to freer movement and basketball games that resemble basketball and not 1970's Big Ten football. The NBA bit the bullet and the result has been objectively much better basketball. Hopefully college basketball officials ignore the noise and remain committed to the cause.

@GoodmanESPN: The one fairly consistent thing among the secret scrimmages? LOTS OF FOULS CALLED. Everyone needs to be patient early in year. Again.