Get Rid of the Charge

[wadesworld]

The refs aren’t our issue tonight. But LOL at just deciding “the next contact I take I’m just falling as hard as I can” and getting a turnover out of it. Marcus Smart getting DPOY by simply doing that is embarrassing, and we’ll just see more and more of it.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The refs aren’t our issue tonight. But LOL at just deciding “the next contact I take I’m just falling as hard as I can” and getting a turnover out of it. Marcus Smart getting DPOY by simply doing that is embarrassing, and we’ll just see more and more of it.

I don’t understand how that isn’t a point of emphasis for the Big East. If there isn’t an elbow or a hook, there should never be a charge on a back down in the post. They’re all flops by the defender.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I don’t understand how that isn’t a point of emphasis for the Big East. If there isn’t an elbow or a hook, there should never be a charge on a back down in the post. They’re all flops by the defender.

Yeah…that’s not accurate.

[BrewCity83]

Yeah…that’s not accurate.

Last night it was.  Alleyne's flops were Davison-esqe, yet he got at least two calls on them.

[The Sultan of Semantics]

I don’t understand how that isn’t a point of emphasis for the Big East. If there isn’t an elbow or a hook, there should never be a charge on a back down in the post. They’re all flops by the defender.

Sorry, but what? You don't think there can be any offensive fouls for a back down in the post?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't think you can rid of the charge. I am a fan of expanding the restricted area and making it a violation instead of a foul.

[Scoop Snoop]

I don't think you can rid of the charge. I am a fan of expanding the restricted area and making it a violation instead of a foul.

Yep yep. One more change though- no charge call when the defender slides right in front of the ball handler. That should be a block.

[Uncle Rico]

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-change-to-legal-guarding-position-approved-for-mens-basketball.aspx

White people are devastated

[MU82]

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-change-to-legal-guarding-position-approved-for-mens-basketball.aspx

White people are devastated

Some other interesting rule changes in there, including:

++ Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team will be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.

(This should help speed up the end of games, which often become interminable bores.)

++ A timeout will be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne. An example would be a player grabbing a loose ball and calling timeout before landing out of bounds.

(This used to be allowed but they stopped allowing it several years ago.)

++ Players will be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.

(Nice. There's no good reason players shouldn't be restricted to the numbers they have been.)

[Scoop Snoop]

Yep yep. One more change though- no charge call when the defender slides right in front of the ball handler. That should be a block.

Bump.

[tower912]

Get rid of the Eurostep next.

[lawdog77]

Get rid of the dunk next

[Uncle Rico]

Get rid of the dunk next

And the 3-pointer and shot clock. 

[The Sultan of Semantics]

++ A timeout will be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne. An example would be a player grabbing a loose ball and calling timeout before landing out of bounds.

(This used to be allowed but they stopped allowing it several years ago.)

I have no idea why they decided to bring this back.

[panda]

I have no idea why they decided to bring this back.

My only guess is that it encourages the use of timeouts outside of end of game situations. Theoretically could improve "pace of play"

[Jay Bee]

I have no idea why they decided to bring this back.

Because it’s logical.

For each rule change, the rationale behind it is discussed.

On this one, it’s very basic: they decided that if a player had possession of the ball, they should be entitled to request a timeout.

[The Sultan of Semantics]

Because it’s logical.

For each rule change, the rationale behind it is discussed.

On this one, it’s very basic: they decided that if a player had possession of the ball, they should be entitled to request a timeout.

I understand that rationale. It just seemed like there wasn't a particular reason why they decided to revisit that rule at this point.

[muwarrior69]

Some other interesting rule changes in there, including:

++ Under two minutes, when a coach requests an out-of-bounds play be reviewed, that team will be charged a timeout if the original call is not overturned.

(This should help speed up the end of games, which often become interminable bores.)

++ A timeout will be able to be granted when a player has possession of the ball even though the player is airborne. An example would be a player grabbing a loose ball and calling timeout before landing out of bounds.

(This used to be allowed but they stopped allowing it several years ago.)

++ Players will be allowed to wear numbers 0-99.

(Nice. There's no good reason players shouldn't be restricted to the numbers they have been.)

How about PI, you know 3.14159 etc? The rule does not stipulate whole numbers.

[RushmoreAcademy]

Nooooooooooo
This thread is back lol

[Jay Bee]

How about PI, you know 3.14159 etc? The rule does not stipulate whole numbers.

#FakeNews #Lies

The actual rule (rule 1 section 22 article 7) spells out the specific numbers allowed. Strange way perhaps.. vs. “whole numbers between….” But that’s the rule.

You also can use 0 or 00…. But not both

[muwarrior69]

#FakeNews #Lies

The actual rule (rule 1 section 22 article 7) spells out the specific numbers allowed. Strange way perhaps.. vs. “whole numbers between….” But that’s the rule.

You also can use 0 or 00…. But not both

Awe, that sucks, but I stand corrected.

[muwarrior69]

I can remember when women didn’t wear pants

How old are you?

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/286682332514250790/

[warriorchick]

I just finished watching a documentary about Mary Tyler Moore.

Fun fact:  Her character on the Dick Van Dyke Show, Laura Petrie, was the first woman on a TV series who wore pants on a regular basis.  Even then, there were strict rules from the censors about how tight they could be in the, er, hip area.

[Scoop Snoop]

I just finished watching a documentary about Mary Tyler Moore.

Fun fact:  Her character on the Dick Van Dyke Show, Laura Petrie, was the first woman on a TV series who wore pants on a regular basis.  Even then, there were strict rules from the censors about how tight they could be in the, er, hip area.

In one of his All Creatures Great and Small books, British vet James Herriot wrote about his young wife assisting him on farm calls just before the outbreak of WWII. She was wearing pants, much to the surprise, or perhaps I should say shock, of the very conservative Yorkshire farmers.   

[muwarrior69]

In one of his All Creatures Great and Small books, British vet James Herriot wrote about his young wife assisting him on farm calls just before the outbreak of WWII. She was wearing pants, much to the surprise, or perhaps I should say shock, of the very conservative Yorkshire farmers.

Great show on PBS by the way. My mom was factory worker and required to wear pants for her job in the 1950s. I'm sure all the Rosy the riveters during the War years wore only skirts.