What does everyone think of the rule changes this year?

[EricSD]

I'm not sure if ALL the changes are for this season but off the top of my head:

1. 4 quarters instead of 2 halves
2. Calling a time out in the last minute does NOT advance the ball to past half court
3. No 1 and 1 - teams get 2 FT's automatically after the 5th foul in any quarter
4. Four time outs carry over into the 2nd half if not used
5. No charge zones - where defenders can't plant themselves to take charges (or the "anti-ND rule)
6. 2 handed touch fouls called
7. Defenders can only place one hand or forearm on offensive players
8. Instant replay reviews

There are several other rule changes involving color of shorts, team decals and promo material, conference and team logo placement, time the bands can play, etc, but these aren't really relevant to game play.

Personally, I can't find a single rule I don't like. Most of the rules seemed geared towards higher offensive games in that they limit what defenders can do. I wonder if scoring averages are up across WCBB, or if it's only had a negligible impact. What do the rest of you think?

 

[JordyG]

Actually these changes were put into effect last year. That said they've all seemed to prove themselves as usefull and game enhancing.. Including (Debbie Antonelli aside) no 1+1's. The restricted area was instituted 5/11. I really like quarters instead of halves, the 10 second back court rule, advancing the ball to inbound in the front court following a made basket in the final minutes of the 4th quarter, and back to the basket hand and forearm checks.

 

[itsasport]

I think what was meant was, what do we think of the new rules changes this year, and eric thinks that all 10 were in that group of new changes.

I like them as well.

 

[Bigboote]

I don't like no 1-and-1. It rewards teams that can't sink foul shots (i. e., don't stress the fundamentals).

I don't like the ticky-tack fouls. Most of the rules were intended to "improve the flow of the game", but it sure seems to me that all the hand-checks, and consequent increased whistles and foul shots, just interrupts the flow of the game.

I like advancing the inbounding; rewards teams that don't call a lot of timeouts. I also like the no-charge zone. I always hated it when someone stood under the basket and was rewarded with a charge call.

Cheers, Charlie

 

[Kmoney]

I think they are all good and give a better flow to the games. It seems like there are less commercials. I suspect the men are looking at some of these changes.

The one additional change I would like to see is getting rid of the alternating possession rule.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'm not sure if ALL the changes are for this season but off the top of my head:

1. 4 quarters instead of 2 halves
2. Calling a time out in the last minute does NOT advance the ball to past half court
3. No 1 and 1 - teams get 2 FT's automatically after the 5th foul in any quarter
4. Four time outs carry over into the 2nd half if not used
5. No charge zones - where defenders can't plant themselves to take charges (or the "anti-ND rule)
6. 2 handed touch fouls called
7. Defenders can only place one hand or forearm on offensive players
8. Instant replay reviews

There are several other rule changes involving color of shorts, team decals and promo material, conference and team logo placement, time the bands can play, etc, but these aren't really relevant to game play.

Personally, I can't find a single rule I don't like. Most of the rules seemed geared towards higher offensive games in that they limit what defenders can do. I wonder if scoring averages are up across WCBB, or if it's only had a negligible impact. What do the rest of you think?

Regarding #2 - it does advance the ball in the last minute of the game. Same as last year. Done 3 times by Arizona and their opponent at the last game I was at. As always, you have to call the time out before you do anything with the ball. The visitors questioned Arizona's use of the advance in one case, but officials explained that the HC had called the time out before the ball was in-bounded, and a second or 2 was put back on the game clock.

As someone said, they are almost all from last year. I find the quarters format decreases the real time that a game runs (all other factors being equal, for example, fouls).

Instant replay is very limited. I wouldn't mind a "challenge" system (only 1 or 2 a game) for out-of-bounds plays, which officials can only check in "last 2? minutes" circumstances and maybe back-court violations, which I don't think they can check at all.

 

[JordyG]

Regarding #2 - it does advance the ball in the last minute of the game. Same as last year. Done 3 times by Arizona and their opponent at the last game I was at. As always, you have to call the time out before you do anything with the ball. The visitors questioned Arizona's use of the advance in one case, but officials explained that the HC had called the time out before the ball was in-bounded, and a second or 2 was put back on the game clock.

As someone said, they are almost all from last year. I find the quarters format decreases the real time that a game runs (all other factors being equal, for example, fouls).

Instant replay is very limited. I wouldn't mind a "challenge" system (only 1 or 2 a game) for out-of-bounds plays, which officials can only check in "last 2? minutes" circumstances and maybe back-court violations, which I don't think they can check at all.

You know, the game has sped up nicely. I don't want to slow in down with lengthy challenges. Also challenges in basketball to me just don't affect the game as much as say football. For future changes I would maybe consider moving the 3 pt line back a foot and moving the restricted or "no charge" zone out to 4 feet. I would also like to see all sidelines and endlines in all arena's more clearly defined, and more room for out of bounds in both areas. Of course, better and more uniform officiating. I'd like to see one shot and possession for technical's. No team warning for throw-in violations. I'm also not a fan of tight outfits for young ladies who are boosters or cheerleaders. I just think we are sending the wrong message to viewers and young women.

 

[alexrgct]

I basically don't notice or feel the presence of these changes while watching games. Thus, they must be okay. End of story.

 

[Vowelguy]

Didn't think I would like 4 quarters but I really do. Big improvement. Men need to move to it.

 

[Sonny44]

Can someone explain the no charge zone please?

 

[Rayvin56]

I think they are all good and give a better flow to the games. It seems like there are less commercials. I suspect the men are looking at some of these changes.

The one additional change I would like to see is getting rid of the alternating possession rule.

Would you go back to the jump ball? Was there ever a jump ball in WCBB?

 

[EricSD]

Can someone explain the no charge zone please?

It's a 3 foot arc - 3 feet away from the basket. Defenders cannot stand inside the arc and draw a charge against an offensive player, even if they have established their position and are standing still...

Side note - on the men's side, this was increased to 4'. I would guess the women would move to the 4' arc eventually, but who knows? For me, I think it's great. It prevents defenders from planting themselves and expecting to draw a foul against the other team who is driving to the hoop.

Most of the changes seem to be geared towards improving the offensive flow of the game. Me likey!

 

[drweo]

I don't like no 1-and-1. It rewards teams that can't sink foul shots (i. e., don't stress the fundamentals).

I don't like the ticky-tack fouls. Most of the rules were intended to "improve the flow of the game", but it sure seems to me that all the hand-checks, and consequent increased whistles and foul shots, just interrupts the flow of the game.

I like advancing the inbounding; rewards teams that don't call a lot of timeouts. I also like the no-charge zone. I always hated it when someone stood under the basket and was rewarded with a charge call.

Cheers, Charlie

Agree about the ticky-tack fouls and the effects on flow of the game. Many of them seem quite unnecessary.

 

[Intpseeker]

I went to a men's double header the other night, and found the halves instead of quarters to be interminable. That could have been due to the absolutely atrocious nature of the game being played. Between Fairfield, BC, Oklahoma and Auburn, the next set play they run will be a first. All iso, one-on-one. Boring.

What I did notice, and it is the same for the women's game, is that the officiating is just bad, and while part of it are the 'areas of emphasis', creating ticky tack fouls on the perimeter, while ignoring first-degree assault underneath, the real problem was that the officials were consistently out of position to make effective calls or making calls that were not there's to make.

In one of the games, a bad call was made, then another official made a call to 'correct' the original injustice, and that started a cascade of the worst, most creative foul calling I believe I've witnessed.

I didn't have a dog in the fight, so was pretty objective.

If they want to improve the game, improve the officiating.

 

[tomcat]

The only one I have a question about -- and I just haven't thought it through yet, is the no 1-and-1 rule. I think it'd be better if they returned to the old way. The restbof the rules work for me. The quarters do seem better than halves.

 

[Sonny44]

It's a 3 foot arc - 3 feet away from the basket. Defenders cannot stand inside the arc and draw a charge against an offensive player, even if they have established their position and are standing still...

Side note - on the men's side, this was increased to 4'. I would guess the women would move to the 4' arc eventually, but who knows? For me, I think it's great. It prevents defenders from planting themselves and expecting to draw a foul against the other team who is driving to the hoop.

Most of the changes seem to be geared towards improving the offensive flow of the game. Me likey!

Thanks eric.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Getting rid of the 1 and 1 was a mistake and the quarters are unnecessary.

 

[Kmoney]

Would you go back to the jump ball? Was there ever a jump ball in WCBB?

Yes and yes. Couple of the reasons jump balls went away is because of the wildly inconsistent tossing of the ball and the time consumed while players jostled for position.

 

[stamfordhusky]

It's a 3 foot arc - 3 feet away from the basket. Defenders cannot stand inside the arc and draw a charge against an offensive player, even if they have established their position and are standing still...

Side note - on the men's side, this was increased to 4'. I would guess the women would move to the 4' arc eventually, but who knows? For me, I think it's great. It prevents defenders from planting themselves and expecting to draw a foul against the other team who is driving to the hoop.

Most of the changes seem to be geared towards improving the offensive flow of the game. Me likey!

To clarify, you can still stand inside the arc and draw a charge if it is on the player you are guarding. But it is not legal if a so-called secondary defender attempts to draw the charge.

 

[Oldbones]

The only one I have a question about -- and I just haven't thought it through yet, is the no 1-and-1 rule. I think it'd be better if they returned to the old way. The restbof the rules work for me. The quarters do seem better than halves.

I never liked 1 and 1. IMHO it did not penalize the fouling team enough. And, it became a way for a losing team to try to close the gap by means other than by defensive measures, such as traps and presses, or by speeding up on offensive and/or focusing on threes. It tended to slow down the game, turning it into what Wayne Gretzky (discussing ice hockey shootouts) called a skills competition. With two shots, catching up by such means is harder.

 

[JordyG]

It's a 3 foot arc - 3 feet away from the basket. Defenders cannot stand inside the arc and draw a charge against an offensive player, even if they have established their position and are standing still...

Side note - on the men's side, this was increased to 4'. I would guess the women would move to the 4' arc eventually, but who knows? For me, I think it's great. It prevents defenders from planting themselves and expecting to draw a foul against the other team who is driving to the hoop.

Most of the changes seem to be geared towards improving the offensive flow of the game. Me likey!

Likey very muchy.

 

[JordyG]

To clarify, you can still stand inside the arc and draw a charge if it is on the player you are guarding. But it is not legal if a so-called secondary defender attempts to draw the charge.

And also to clarify, all you need is part of your foot on that line and it should be called.

 

[JordyG]

Yes and yes. Couple of the reasons jump balls went away is because of the wildly inconsistent tossing of the ball and the time consumed while players jostled for position.

No and no for those very reasons. Also because of the frequent height mismatches involved, and how it slowed the games progress.

 

[Oldbones]

I'm not sure if ALL the changes are for this season but off the top of my head:

1. 4 quarters instead of 2 halves
2. Calling a time out in the last minute does NOT advance the ball to past half court
3. No 1 and 1 - teams get 2 FT's automatically after the 5th foul in any quarter
4. Four time outs carry over into the 2nd half if not used
5. No charge zones - where defenders can't plant themselves to take charges (or the "anti-ND rule)
6. 2 handed touch fouls called
7. Defenders can only place one hand or forearm on offensive players
8. Instant replay reviews

There are several other rule changes involving color of shorts, team decals and promo material, conference and team logo placement, time the bands can play, etc, but these aren't really relevant to game play.

Personally, I can't find a single rule I don't like. Most of the rules seemed geared towards higher offensive games in that they limit what defenders can do. I wonder if scoring averages are up across WCBB, or if it's only had a negligible impact. What do the rest of you think?

My eighth grader granddaughter took time out from Christmas dinner to explain the commutative properties of math to me so I know that two halves are the same as four quarters, and that "1 and 1" and "two" are the same as well. So I have no problem.

 

[JordyG]

My eighth grader granddaughter took time out from Christmas dinner to explain the commutative properties of math to me so I know that two halves are the same as four quarters, and that "1 and 1" and "two" are the same as well. So I have no problem.

Smart and brave young girl your granddaughter.

 

[Kibitzer]

I wish they would mandate the same ball, same no-charge arc, and same shot clock for both men and women.

 

[Kmoney]

My eighth grader granddaughter took time out from Christmas dinner to explain the commutative properties of math to me so I know that two halves are the same as four quarters, and that "1 and 1" and "two" are the same as well. So I have no problem.

By going to quarters, there is one less TV timeout per half.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I agree with Oldbones regarding the elimination of the 1 and 1. It has always seemed to me
to be a structural imperfection of the game of basketball to allow a team to gain an advantage
by committing a foul. With the new rule they can still gain an advantage by fouling but it's
not as big an advantage.

I would rather see a team rewarded for working and executing to build a significant lead over
the first 38.5 minutes of the game than see a team rewarded for stealing the game by fouling
over the last 90 seconds.

 

[Kmoney]

No and no for those very reasons. Also because of the frequent height mismatches involved, and how it slowed the games progress.

Jostling for position is time consuming and thous it slows the game. I never heard the height argument before as the reason for ending jump balls. It's Christmas so I'll give you that one.

 

[OldAlum]

I would like to see "jump ball " possession determined by a randomizer gadget. Mostly because I would like the team causing the tie-up to always have a chance at possession. Not a big deal though.