NCAA Approves Rule Changes (30 second shot clock and fewer timeouts)

Donate To GopherHole
C

chri1673

Active member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
295
Reaction score
100
Points
43
"The NCAA has approved multiple rule changes to men's basketball for the 2015-16 season, including a 30-second shot clock and fewer timeouts for each team."

"In other changes, coaches will no longer be allowed to call timeouts during live ball situations and, with only a few exceptions, teams will get just 10 total seconds to advance the ball past half court instead of resetting the clock if there is a stoppage.

Teams also will have 15 seconds, instead of 20, to make a substitution when a player fouls out, and officials will be instructed to start play more quickly following timeouts. If a team does not comply, it will be given a warning. Each additional offense will result in a one-shot technical foul.

Other changes include allowing refs to use replay reviews for potential shot clock violations on made baskets throughout the game and to penalize players for faking fouls, making Class B technical fouls such as hanging on the rim and delay of game one-shot infractions instead of two, removing the prohibition on dunking during warm-ups, eliminating the five-second rule when a player is dribbling and experimenting with a sixth foul during next season's lower-tier postseason tourneys.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...-16-including-30-second-shot-clock-fewer-outs

Definitely a step in the right direction IMO. Will be interesting to see the flopping calls enforced
 



A move in the right direction. Still need to fix the endgame so we don't have intentional fouls, free throw line parade and 5 timeouts in 45 seconds. Way too many people think that fouling someone intentionally is good basketball.
 

AO54 said:
A move in the right direction. Still need to fix the endgame so we don't have intentional fouls, free throw line parade and 5 timeouts in 45 seconds. Way too many people think that fouling someone intentionally is good basketball.
Click to expand...

I must be living in isolation because I've never heard someone state that they think intentional fouling is good for the game. Do you have any examples?

Intentional fouling is a strategy that has won games, which is why coaches employ the strategy. I agree that a stricter interpretation on intentional fouls at the end of the game would be helpful. Make it a 2 shot foul and the team keeps the possession. That should reduce the intentional fouls.
 


AO54 said:
A move in the right direction. Still need to fix the endgame so we don't have intentional fouls, free throw line parade and 5 timeouts in 45 seconds. Way too many people think that fouling someone intentionally is good basketball.
Click to expand...

Duke Maryland 2001. That's my response. I wont ever say that fouling at the end of games should be outlawed. It provides excitement otherwise a 5 point lead with 1 minute left would be nearly impossible to lose.
 

Tim1406 said:
Duke Maryland 2001. That's my response. I wont ever say that fouling at the end of games should be outlawed. It provides excitement otherwise a 5 point lead with 1 minute left would be nearly impossible to lose.
Click to expand...
I agree that there will be less "buzzer beater" opportunities, but this gives greater excitement to the rest of the game. A 5 point lead is going to mean a lot more. And when you do get the buzzer beater it is that much more rare and special. Basketball is the only sport where you intentionally foul people to gain an advantage, it's ridiculous.
 

I would like to see the alternate possession rule replaced with a return to the jump ball.
 

tinyarch said:
I must be living in isolation because I've never heard someone state that they think intentional fouling is good for the game. Do you have any examples?

Intentional fouling is a strategy that has won games, which is why coaches employ the strategy. I agree that a stricter interpretation on intentional fouls at the end of the game would be helpful. Make it a 2 shot foul and the team keeps the possession. That should reduce the intentional fouls.
Click to expand...

Read the bolded that you quoted again Tiny. He didn't say what you said he said (ya feel me?). He said precisely what you replied with, its good basketball (read: good basketball strategy)
 



Bringing up the flop rule, who remembers when Will Sheehey flopped in the last 30 seconds of our game vs them when they were #1. I am glad they can review if the player flopped.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
Read the bolded that you quoted again Tiny. He didn't say what you said he said (ya feel me?). He said precisely what you replied with, its good basketball (read: good basketball strategy)
Click to expand...

Here is what A054 said.

Way too many people think that fouling someone intentionally is good basketball.
Click to expand...

Here is my response.

I've never heard someone state that they think intentional fouling is good for the game.
Click to expand...

While I used different language, I addressed the same idea. Though, I can see your parsing of words caused you to interpret that I addressed a different issue, my intention was to point out that I haven't heard anyone call it good basketball...thus equating it with being good for the game.

I, on the other hand, do not recognize how A054 said precisely what I said. Perhaps A054 would consider clarifying.
 

AO54 said:
I agree that there will be less "buzzer beater" opportunities, but this gives greater excitement to the rest of the game. A 5 point lead is going to mean a lot more. And when you do get the buzzer beater it is that much more rare and special. Basketball is the only sport where you intentionally foul people to gain an advantage, it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The team is not gaining an advantage if you make your free throws and play some defense. Teams are going to foul no matter what because it gives them the best chance to come back.
 

tinyarch said:
Here is what A054 said.



Here is my response.



While I used different language, I addressed the same idea. Though, I can see your parsing of words caused you to interpret that I addressed a different issue, my intention was to point out that I haven't heard anyone call it good basketball...thus equating it with being good for the game.

I, on the other hand, do not recognize how A054 said precisely what I said. Perhaps A054 would consider clarifying.
Click to expand...
Van Gundy, while hates the existence of hack a xyz player, doesn't want the rule to change. He just wants guys to make their free throws or coaches to take those players out of the game. He has called fouling deandre Jordan good basketball.
 



GophersInIowa said:
The team is not gaining an advantage if you make your free throws and play some defense. Teams are going to foul no matter what because it gives them the best chance to come back.
Click to expand...

True until they introduced the 3. Until 1954 teams could decline free throws and effectively stall so they made them take free throws, but after they started using the shot clock they should have brought back the decline option as stalling was no longer much of a strategy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

tinyarch said:
Here is what A054 said.



Here is my response.



While I used different language, I addressed the same idea. Though, I can see your parsing of words caused you to interpret that I addressed a different issue, my intention was to point out that I haven't heard anyone call it good basketball...thus equating it with being good for the game.

I, on the other hand, do not recognize how A054 said precisely what I said. Perhaps A054 would consider clarifying.
Click to expand...

Good coaching strategy under the current rules. Bad for the game.

It's not just fouling at the end of games either. If you can prevent a layup by hacking someone on the drive they won't even get free throws. The play should continue if the offense still has the advantage as in hockey, soccer and in many cases football.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

@MNCoachPitino
One big difference between pro and college. In the NBA, refs make the call and its on to the next play. Too much explaining in college

@MNCoachPitino
There are plenty of ways to continue to speed up the game. That is one of them. Coaches aren't entitled to an explanation from the refs
 


Amen to this...

"Until 1954 teams could decline free throws and effectively stall so they made them take free throws, but after they started using the shot clock they should have brought back the decline option as stalling was no longer much of a strategy."

Basketball is the only sport where you get rewarded by fouling someone. Let teams have the option of declining the free throw and that goes away.
 

45north said:
Basketball is the only sport where you get rewarded by fouling someone. Let teams have the option of declining the free throw and that goes away.
Click to expand...

Other sports foul on purpose all the time and are rewarded, hockey they take penalties all the time to stop breakaways (reward is not having a one on one with the goalie), there is the drawback of having a power play against you but it stops a likely goal scenario. College Football the secondary grab and hold as soon as they know they are beat, rewarded not giving up a deep TD, with only a 15 yard penalty applied.

Point is, making free-throws and getting a stop or 2 at the end of the game requires a team to have a little composure, which a good team should have anyways.
 

chri1673 said:
Other sports foul on purpose all the time and are rewarded, hockey they take penalties all the time to stop breakaways (reward is not having a one on one with the goalie), there is the drawback of having a power play against you but it stops a likely goal scenario. College Football the secondary grab and hold as soon as they know they are beat, rewarded not giving up a deep TD, with only a 15 yard penalty applied.

Point is, making free-throws and getting a stop or 2 at the end of the game requires a team to have a little composure, which a good team should have anyways.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call those "rewards", just the lesser of two negative outcomes. In both situations even with the foul called the goal could still be scored and the touchdown caught. Any football team tacking on 15 yards to their current yardage is going to give them a tremendous opportunity to score. The hockey power play also leads to great chance for scoring plus very very little chance for the defense to score. If football and hockey were called like basketball, play would stop before the offense had a chance to score and the ball or puck would just be given to the defending team after a penalty equal to roughly 2% of the expected scoring for the game.
 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Wisconsin in this thread. I bet Bo is pissed since they won't be able to exploit the shot clock as much now. I think 30 is the perfect length.

I hope they do move toward 6 fouls. I'm so sick of games ruined by stars picking up two quick fouls and having to sit the rest of the half. It would be different if college refs were great and the fouls were legitimate, but it's so often that it's one real foul and one garbage call and then they have to sit 15 minutes. I don't see anything wrong with moving to 6. Sick of so many games so heavily influenced by foul trouble.
 

underground629 said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Wisconsin in this thread. I bet Bo is pissed since they won't be able to exploit the shot clock as much now. I think 30 is the perfect length.

I hope they do move toward 6 fouls. I'm so sick of games ruined by stars picking up two quick fouls and having to sit the rest of the half. It would be different if college refs were great and the fouls were legitimate, but it's so often that it's one real foul and one garbage call and then they have to sit 15 minutes. I don't see anything wrong with moving to 6. Sick of so many games so heavily influenced by foul trouble.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on how you think this will stop Wisconsin from "exploiting the shot clock" and also what exactly does that mean?

Wisconsin is still going to work the ball until they get an open shot. If you're suggesting they took a large percentage of shots within the last 5 seconds and you think that their offense requires those last five seconds thats the only loss here. Easily combated by hustling the ball up the court rather than walking it up, even though we both know thats not the case and they won't be doing that.
 

underground629 said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Wisconsin in this thread. I bet Bo is pissed since they won't be able to exploit the shot clock as much now. I think 30 is the perfect length.

I hope they do move toward 6 fouls. I'm so sick of games ruined by stars picking up two quick fouls and having to sit the rest of the half. It would be different if college refs were great and the fouls were legitimate, but it's so often that it's one real foul and one garbage call and then they have to sit 15 minutes. I don't see anything wrong with moving to 6. Sick of so many games so heavily influenced by foul trouble.
Click to expand...

How about 6 total but only 3 fouls by halftime. if you get 3 fouls before half time the player must sit out until the 2nd half. Just saying that'd throw a wrinkle in there. Maybe I'm overthinking this because if a player got 3 the coach would likely sit them anyway.
 

I'd like to see no disqualification for fouls, or at least significantly more than 5 (ten? Just so players couldn't go silly). I'd shoot two shots on every foul with, perhaps, some premium for shooting fouls (remember the old NBA 3-to make-2?). After five team fouls there should be a bonus/penalty of 2 free throws plus the ball. If you hack too much, you've lost you chance at fouling to get the ball back at the end of the game.
 


I never said that. I said they won't be able to exploit the shot clock AS MUCH. I'm saying they slow the game down so much by using close to all 35 seconds of the shot clock. They're the only team to really consistently do that as far as I know. Now they can't. Hopefully it throws things off for them a little bit, but mostly I'm just happy that they won't be quite as unbearable to watch when we play them. It will also make the end of games better so that teams who are up can't use up quite as much time.

Winasota Gopher said:
Please elaborate on how you think this will stop Wisconsin from "exploiting the shot clock" and also what exactly does that mean?

Wisconsin is still going to work the ball until they get an open shot. If you're suggesting they took a large percentage of shots within the last 5 seconds and you think that their offense requires those last five seconds thats the only loss here. Easily combated by hustling the ball up the court rather than walking it up, even though we both know thats not the case and they won't be doing that.
Click to expand...
 

Yeah, I think pretty much any coach would sit a player with 3 fouls before halftime.

Tim1406 said:
How about 6 total but only 3 fouls by halftime. if you get 3 fouls before half time the player must sit out until the 2nd half. Just saying that'd throw a wrinkle in there. Maybe I'm overthinking this because if a player got 3 the coach would likely sit them anyway.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom