http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9259772/ncaa-basketball-rules-committee-approves-more-replays-bounds-shot-clock-violations
Would have liked to have seen the shot clock go down to 30. Even the women have to get a shot off in 30 seconds.
Quote from: hdog1017 on May 09, 2013, 07:57:08 PM
Would have liked to have seen the shot clock go down to 30. Even the women have to get a shot off in 30 seconds.
.......
35 sec. clock stinks. Way too long, does not reward good defense.
Quote from: newsdrms on May 09, 2013, 09:14:50 PM
35 sec. clock stinks. Way too long, does not reward good defense.
Conversely offense could get even worse by having teams chuck up shots 5 seconds earlier. Can argue both ways
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 09, 2013, 10:05:11 PM
Conversely offense could get even worse by having teams chuck up shots 5 seconds earlier. Can argue both ways
Nope did not happen in FIBA if anything improved offense. 30 sec is way more than enough time to get a shot off. Where I live pro teams play FIBA rules and 30 sec. shot totally improved the game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 09, 2013, 10:05:11 PM
Conversely offense could get even worse by having teams chuck up shots 5 seconds earlier. Can argue both ways
Completely agree. I'm not an NBA guy (swore off NBA when Bucks traded Ray Allen), but after watching the first two Bulls/Heat games I was amazed at how the 24 second clock impacted the game. The ball crossed half court with 17 and it is and isolation game at that point.
Reducing the shot clock would elimate the opportunity to swing the ball or pound it down low.
Quote from: Waryours on May 09, 2013, 10:27:44 PM
Completely agree. I'm not an NBA guy (swore off NBA when Bucks traded Ray Allen), but after watching the first two Bulls/Heat games I was amazed at how the 24 second clock impacted the game. The ball crossed half court with 17 and it is and isolation game at that point.
Reducing the shot clock would elimate the opportunity to swing the ball or pound it down low.
Not down to 24, but down to 30 a 25% difference. 30 sec. still rewards a good efficient offense, but does justice to a good D. Seen the change in the local pro league and 30 is the right amount of time.
Biggest thing here by far was block-charge call changes. Here's hoping the refs get it right in games. If so, it should add several points per game.
As a guy who has reffed as high up as high school, I can tell you that block-charge is difficult, sometimes brutally so. This tweaking should make it at least a little easier.
I'd like to see them make jump balls actual jump balls. Wouldn't mind the 30second shot clock as I feel it'd make for more motion defense and motion offense as opposed to slowly setting up everything
Quote from: newsdrms on May 09, 2013, 10:21:26 PM
Nope did not happen in FIBA if anything improved offense. 30 sec is way more than enough time to get a shot off. Where I live pro teams play FIBA rules and 30 sec. shot totally improved the game.
In my view the dilution of talent in the college game is already there with some fairly horrendous offensive byproducts as a result. Asking them to rush into shots 5 seconds earlier isn't going to help that scenario. More rushed shots, less passing, more clearouts and 1-on-1 stuff. Just my opinion, could be totally wrong.
Quote from: hdog1017 on May 09, 2013, 07:57:08 PM
Would have liked to have seen the shot clock go down to 30. Even the women have to get a shot off in 30 seconds.
I suppose the thinking is that it will be too difficult for the men to get a shot off in 30 seconds, especially at schools like UW. etc., where a score in the mid 50's is a career day.
Another rule I'd like to see changed is the "Sam Cassell move" where a player pump fakes, gets the defender into the air and then jumps into the defender and flings the ball towards the hoop. If the defender jumps and lands on or hits the shooter in his normal shooting motion, that's obviously a foul, but if the defender is in the air and a jump-shooter goes out of his way to jump, lean or contort to initiate contact, it should be a no call.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on May 09, 2013, 11:17:06 PM
I'd like to see them make jump balls actual jump balls. Wouldn't mind the 30second shot clock as I feel it'd make for more motion defense and motion offense as opposed to slowly setting up everything
I don't think I'd like to see actual jump balls. I think that that could not reward some players and teams for fighting for 50/50 balls. If a PG goes in to tie up the ball with a 4 or 5, then absolutely nothing was accomplished because in almost every case, the 4 or 5 will win the jump. If anything, now the PG is risking getting a foul called.
I'm all for this too
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Another rule I'd like to see changed is the "Sam Cassell move" where a player pump fakes, gets the defender into the air and then jumps into the defender and flings the ball towards the hoop. If the defender jumps and lands on or hits the shooter in his normal shooting motion, that's obviously a foul, but if the defender is in the air and a jump-shooter goes out of his way to jump, lean or contort to initiate contact, it should be a no call.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Another rule I'd like to see changed is the "Sam Cassell move" where a player pump fakes, gets the defender into the air and then jumps into the defender and flings the ball towards the hoop. If the defender jumps and lands on or hits the shooter in his normal shooting motion, that's obviously a foul, but if the defender is in the air and a jump-shooter goes out of his way to jump, lean or contort to initiate contact, it should be a no call.
Only if the defender jumps straight up. Otherwise I think the current rule is the best one.
In addition, greater emphasis is being placed on calling fouls on defensive players who keep a hand or forearm on an opponent or use an arm bar to impede the progress of an opponent.
In a quick read I did not see this in the ESPN article, but it was in another article. I think this is the biggest rule change, if it is actually enforced. Nobody is going to be able to stop Gardner, if they enforce this rule. However, on the flip side Gardner will be toast on defense. I also see this as an anti-Louisville rule.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 10, 2013, 01:06:54 AM
In my view the dilution of talent in the college game is already there with some fairly horrendous offensive byproducts as a result. Asking them to rush into shots 5 seconds earlier isn't going to help that scenario. More rushed shots, less passing, more clearouts and 1-on-1 stuff. Just my opinion, could be totally wrong.
If teams were actually working to get a shot for the entire 35 seconds I might agree with you, but in most cases it's merely a tactic to shorten the game and limit number of possessions. Some teams don't even really run their offense until the clock is winding down. Others pass up good shots early only to settle for a lousy one late. How many times do we watch a total snooze of a game that becomes exciting because the trailing team is forced to pick up the pace? College coaches tend to be control freaks - it was good for the game when total stall ball was eliminated (I assume you at least agree with this?) and it will be good when the "semi- stall" is at least shortened.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Another rule I'd like to see changed is the "Sam Cassell move" where a player pump fakes, gets the defender into the air and then jumps into the defender and flings the ball towards the hoop. If the defender jumps and lands on or hits the shooter in his normal shooting motion, that's obviously a foul, but if the defender is in the air and a jump-shooter goes out of his way to jump, lean or contort to initiate contact, it should be a no call.
This seemed to be either a Louisville or Syracuse specialty, can't remember, from the tournament. Makes the game almost unwatchable.
Quote from: warrior07 on May 10, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
This seemed to be either a Louisville or Syracuse specialty, can't remember, from the tournament. Makes the game almost unwatchable.
Luke Hancock did it repeatedly in the tournament. On several occasions, he had absolutely no chance of making the shot or intention of really shooting. He'd pump-fake and when defender jumped, Hancock would throw his body into the defender as he flung a wild shot toward the basket. I do not believe this is what the Rules Committee intended when they defined shooting fouls. I certainly don't blame Hancock for doing it, though. He was just taking advantage of the way rules are being interpreted and called.
Quote from: MU82 on May 10, 2013, 10:13:27 AM
Luke Hancock did it repeatedly in the tournament. On several occasions, he had absolutely no chance of making the shot or intention of really shooting. He'd pump-fake and when defender jumped, Hancock would throw his body into the defender as he flung a wild shot toward the basket. I do not believe this is what the Rules Committee intended when they defined shooting fouls. I certainly don't blame Hancock for doing it, though. He was just taking advantage of the way rules are being interpreted and called.
I agree, and it has bothered me for a long time. Butler used to take advantage of this down low, a lot.
If the offensive player jumps into the defender, I don't care if the defender is going straight up or not, the offensive player initiated the contact. Shouldn't be a foul. Do we need a rule change or just an instruction to the refs to not call this a foul? Seems that the offensive player can't initiate contact where a defender is in the air (or not in the air) and get a foul call... or at least that is how I see it.
Quote from: GOO on May 10, 2013, 10:20:22 AM
I agree, and it has bothered me for a long time. Butler used to take advantage of this down low, a lot.
If the offensive player jumps into the defender, I don't care if the defender is going straight up or not, the offensive player initiated the contact. Shouldn't be a foul. Do we need a rule change or just an instruction to the refs to not call this a foul? Seems that the offensive player can't initiate contact where a defender is in the air (or not in the air) and get a foul call... or at least that is how I see it.
Personally, I have no problem with it near the basket when the player has a realistic chance of making the shot - pump fake, get the defender in the air and then go up through him. That's part of the game.
To me, the Cassell play is similar to the rule that a FT shooter cannot purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a lane violation. On the perimeter, a jump shooter should not be allowed to purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a foul. In other words, if a player always pauses, lowers his shoulder and leans drastically to the left on his jumper, then he can get the call on that play ;)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 10:31:13 AM
Personally, I have no problem with it near the basket when the player has a realistic chance of making the shot - pump fake, get the defender in the air and then go up through him. That's part of the game.
To me, the Cassell play is similar to the rule that a FT shooter cannot purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a lane violation. On the perimeter, a jump shooter should not be allowed to purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a foul. In other words, if a player always pauses, lowers his shoulder and leans drastically to the left on his jumper, then he can get the call on that play ;)
You are punishing the defender for leaving his feet. And as soon as you bring in the "normal shooting motion" concept, you are now going to ask these overworked, overweight officials to make another judgement call that they seemingly don't have the ability to make in other circumstances.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 10, 2013, 10:39:22 AM
You are punishing the defender for leaving his feet. And as soon as you bring in the "normal shooting motion" concept, you are now going to ask these overworked, overweight officials to make another judgement call that they seemingly don't have the ability to make in other circumstances.
It would be a blatantly obvious call the make, certainly easier than block/charge. Either the shooter goes up and shoots the ball or he leans sideways and jumps into the defender while throwing the ball in the general direction of the hoop.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
It would be a blatantly obvious call the make, certainly easier than block/charge. Either the shooter goes up and shoots the ball or he leans sideways and jumps into the defender while throwing the ball in the general direction of the hoop.
OK, now what if you have someone coming off a pick and moving sideways and gets fouled on the jumpshot?
Believe me, you take a couple of extreme examples and it sounds easy, but it won't be. Especially when the college game isn't plagued by a bunch of these calls, I see no need to change anything.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 10, 2013, 11:02:48 AM
OK, now what if you have someone coming off a pick and moving sideways and gets fouled on the jumpshot?
Believe me, you take a couple of extreme examples and it sounds easy, but it won't be. Especially when the college game isn't plagued by a bunch of these calls, I see no need to change anything.
That's not the same thing.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 11:14:20 AM
That's not the same thing.
Ah....so I see....
The problems emerge already.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 10, 2013, 11:16:17 AM
Ah....so I see....
The problems emerge already.
Nice try but coming off a screen is NOT the same as pump-faking and then jumping into a defender who's in the air.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 10, 2013, 09:25:37 AM
If teams were actually working to get a shot for the entire 35 seconds I might agree with you, but in most cases it's merely a tactic to shorten the game and limit number of possessions. Some teams don't even really run their offense until the clock is winding down. Others pass up good shots early only to settle for a lousy one late. How many times do we watch a total snooze of a game that becomes exciting because the trailing team is forced to pick up the pace? College coaches tend to be control freaks - it was good for the game when total stall ball was eliminated (I assume you at least agree with this?) and it will be good when the "semi- stall" is at least shortened.
Or are they passing up good shots to try and get better shots? Doesn't always happen, but there are certain shots you can always get. As stated, I don't know the answer here, but if shortening would have meant more one on one stuff, less passing and generally hurried shots and sets, I'm not for it. Whether that would actually happen is debatable.
I do agree that when total stall ball was eliminated was good for the game. On the flip side, I've never been enamored with the NBA style with the shorter clock. Would 30 be better than 35? It might, or maybe not. I don't know.....my proposal was to test it in non-conference games or have a few leagues test it in conference like they did years ago with 6 fouls. Let's get some real data and find out.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Nice try but coming off a screen is NOT the same as pump-faking and then jumping into a defender who's in the air.
No but the point is interpreting how a jump shooter jumps when shooting is something that I don't want referees doing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 10, 2013, 12:52:30 PM
I do agree that when total stall ball was eliminated was good for the game. On the flip side, I've never been enamored with the NBA style with the shorter clock.
The best college game I saw last year was the national championship game. Not coincidentally, the shot clock was a non factor and would have still been a non factor at 30 or 24. Also not coincidentally, nothing is more excruciating than watching a UW - Penn St 39-38 game, and a 49-48 MU - Georgetown game isn't that much better. In amateur wrestling you can be penalized for stalling. Make college basketball teams play basketball, and penalize those who won't - the game will get better.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 10, 2013, 01:59:30 PM
No but the point is interpreting how a jump shooter jumps when shooting is something that I don't want referees doing.
My point is that it's obvious when a jump shooter is simply going up for a shot and when a jump shooter is blatantly jumping into a defender in order to draw contact even though he has no chance at making the shot.
Shorten the shot clock... Bo's Badgers would never even get a shot off if they had only 24 seconds!
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on May 09, 2013, 11:17:06 PM
I'd like to see them make jump balls actual jump balls. Wouldn't mind the 30second shot clock as I feel it'd make for more motion defense and motion offense as opposed to slowly setting up everything
This.
Nothing worse then watching Derrick, Vander, et al. tie a ball up with three seconds left on the opponent's shot clock only for alternating possession to give said opponent another 15 seconds of futility.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on May 13, 2013, 09:11:50 AM
This.
Nothing worse then watching Derrick, Vander, et al. tie a ball up with three seconds left on the opponent's shot clock only for alternating possession to give said opponent another 15 seconds of futility.
But the shot clock doesn't reset. The opponent would still have only 3 seconds left on the shot clock.
On the reverse-side, how awful would it be to see Derrick work hard to tie up the ball with the opponent's 4 or 5 and then have to jump against that opponent for possession.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 10:31:13 AM
Personally, I have no problem with it near the basket when the player has a realistic chance of making the shot - pump fake, get the defender in the air and then go up through him. That's part of the game.
To me, the Cassell play is similar to the rule that a FT shooter cannot purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a lane violation. On the perimeter, a jump shooter should not be allowed to purposely alter his normal shooting motion in an attempt to draw a foul. In other words, if a player always pauses, lowers his shoulder and leans drastically to the left on his jumper, then he can get the call on that play ;)
+1
If the shooter initiates the contact, in other words, shoots into the defender, it should be a non-foul.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 10, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Another rule I'd like to see changed is the "Sam Cassell move" where a player pump fakes, gets the defender into the air and then jumps into the defender and flings the ball towards the hoop. If the defender jumps and lands on or hits the shooter in his normal shooting motion, that's obviously a foul, but if the defender is in the air and a jump-shooter goes out of his way to jump, lean or contort to initiate contact, it should be a no call.
No comment on the actual move, but Sam Cassell sure gets a lot of credit as an innovator. Recently when the Bulls Marco Belinelli got fined from the NBA offices for hanging his arms low, simulating big balls after hitting a big shot, I heard them on the radio talking about how that was the old Sam Cassell move. I always thought the big balls thing was the Pedro Cerrano move.