Hoops rules changes for '17/'18.

[12375CAT]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ball-mens-basketball-coachs-box-grows-10-feet

 

[supermangrantz]

These changes are interesting. But the only REALLY interesting rule change would involve fouling late in the game -- or, in other words, a wholly intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. For example: if a team commits a foul, in the backcourt, within the last 60 seconds of regulation play, with the obvious intention of forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws (and, of course, hopefully miss one or both, but in any case turning over possession of the ball), the offensive team would automatically get two free throws AND RETAIN possession of the ball in the front court. ThIs rule change would force the team trailing at the 60 second mark to play real defense, in the hope of causing a turnover, instead of relying -- as has come to be the case now for at least a generation -- on an intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. This would lead to teams actually playing the game until the very end, versus the game being prolonged by stopping of the clock for repeated fouls and free throws. My own preference would be to institute the rule change as outlined above, but make it apply to the last 120 seconds of regulation play. This would, in my opinion, vastly improve the quality of play for the entire game.

 

[12375CAT]

These changes are interesting. But the only REALLY interesting rule change would involve fouling late in the game -- or, in other words, a wholly intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. For example: if a team commits a foul, in the backcourt, within the last 60 seconds of regulation play, with the obvious intention of forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws (and, of course, hopefully miss one or both, but in any case turning over possession of the ball), the offensive team would automatically get two free throws AND RETAIN possession of the ball in the front court. ThIs rule change would force the team trailing at the 60 second mark to play real defense, in the hope of causing a turnover, instead of relying -- as has come to be the case now for at least a generation -- on an intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. This would lead to teams actually playing the game until the very end, versus the game being prolonged by stopping of the clock for repeated fouls and free throws. My own preference would be to institute the rule change as outlined above, but make it apply to the last 120 seconds of regulation play. This would, in my opinion, vastly improve the quality of play for the entire game.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

These changes are interesting. But the only REALLY interesting rule change would involve fouling late in the game -- or, in other words, a wholly intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. For example: if a team commits a foul, in the backcourt, within the last 60 seconds of regulation play, with the obvious intention of forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws (and, of course, hopefully miss one or both, but in any case turning over possession of the ball), the offensive team would automatically get two free throws AND RETAIN possession of the ball in the front court. ThIs rule change would force the team trailing at the 60 second mark to play real defense, in the hope of causing a turnover, instead of relying -- as has come to be the case now for at least a generation -- on an intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. This would lead to teams actually playing the game until the very end, versus the game being prolonged by stopping of the clock for repeated fouls and free throws. My own preference would be to institute the rule change as outlined above, but make it apply to the last 120 seconds of regulation play. This would, in my opinion, vastly improve the quality of play for the entire game.

They talked about doing this before but never went through with it! The rules only matter if they enforce them.

 

[king ward]

These changes are interesting. But the only REALLY interesting rule change would involve fouling late in the game -- or, in other words, a wholly intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. For example: if a team commits a foul, in the backcourt, within the last 60 seconds of regulation play, with the obvious intention of forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws (and, of course, hopefully miss one or both, but in any case turning over possession of the ball), the offensive team would automatically get two free throws AND RETAIN possession of the ball in the front court. ThIs rule change would force the team trailing at the 60 second mark to play real defense, in the hope of causing a turnover, instead of relying -- as has come to be the case now for at least a generation -- on an intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. This would lead to teams actually playing the game until the very end, versus the game being prolonged by stopping of the clock for repeated fouls and free throws. My own preference would be to institute the rule change as outlined above, but make it apply to the last 120 seconds of regulation play. This would, in my opinion, vastly improve the quality of play for the entire game.

Well, what that does is further de-emphasize free-throw shooting, which this generation of players disdains anyway. But free-throw shooting has historically been an integral part of the game and should not be further degraded as a factor in the game outcome.

 

[DarkCock]

Well, what that does is further de-emphasize free-throw shooting, which this generation of players disdains anyway. But free-throw shooting has historically been an integral part of the game and should not be further degraded as a factor in the game outcome.

Do you have statistically evidence that free throw shooting percentage has declined? Here's an article from 2009 that states free shooting percentages have remained flat for 50 years. Maybe something has changed in the last 8 years, but I haven't noticed it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html

Blocking out is a more lost fundamental, IMO, and one even more important to winning than the ability to shoot free throws.

 

[Crutcher1]

Do you have statistically evidence that free throw shooting percentage has declined? Here's an article from 2009 that states free shooting percentages have remained flat for 50 years. Maybe something has changed in the last 8 years, but I haven't noticed it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html

Blocking out is a more lost fundamental, IMO, and one even more important to winning than the ability to shoot free throws.

I posted sometime last year on the same issue. Most team shoot between 69 and 71% at the free throw line. Only two teams shot at 80%, I believe they were Notre Dame and Villanova.

I think what most people remember are great free throw shooters of the past, like Calvin Murphy and Rick Barry, who both shot over 90%. But overall, teams that shoot about 70% in free throws are about average.

 

[JGH 35]

What exactly do they mean by "secondary defender"?

 

[king ward]

Do you have statistically evidence that free throw shooting percentage has declined? Here's an article from 2009 that states free shooting percentages have remained flat for 50 years. Maybe something has changed in the last 8 years, but I haven't noticed it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html

Blocking out is a more lost fundamental, IMO, and one even more important to winning than the ability to shoot free throws.

I made no claims concerning free throw percentage. I do believe that there are fewer GREAT free throw shooters than there used to be. My assertion is that, with the elimination of shooting common fouls years ago, and now this penalization of teams fouling to put free throw shooters on the line in order to regain possession of the ball, free throw shooting is being further marginalized as a factor in basketball. And if free throws are going to become a less significant game factor, fewer players will work hard to hone those skills.

 

[crouterhead]

These changes are interesting. But the only REALLY interesting rule change would involve fouling late in the game -- or, in other words, a wholly intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. For example: if a team commits a foul, in the backcourt, within the last 60 seconds of regulation play, with the obvious intention of forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws (and, of course, hopefully miss one or both, but in any case turning over possession of the ball), the offensive team would automatically get two free throws AND RETAIN possession of the ball in the front court. ThIs rule change would force the team trailing at the 60 second mark to play real defense, in the hope of causing a turnover, instead of relying -- as has come to be the case now for at least a generation -- on an intentional infraction of the rules as a strategy for winning the game. This would lead to teams actually playing the game until the very end, versus the game being prolonged by stopping of the clock for repeated fouls and free throws. My own preference would be to institute the rule change as outlined above, but make it apply to the last 120 seconds of regulation play. This would, in my opinion, vastly improve the quality of play for the entire game.

Don't remember where I read it, but there was an interesting idea someone had to keep "real basketball" being played 'til the end. Play 15 minutes of a "second half," and whatever the score is at that point, add 10 (or some number) to the team with the lead, and say, whoever reaches that mark first, wins the game. If the score at the 15-minute mark is 65-55, the first team to 75 wins. It would also create a game-winning shot in every game.

That's pretty radical, but interesting.