This Week's Obsession: Rule Changes for Basketball
The NCAA has 13 new men’s basketball rules proposals. Let’s discuss.
Ace: Before we run down the more intriguing proposals, a number of these are unlikely to be recommended. They include:
- Widening the lane to 16 feet (currently 12 feet)
- Award possession to defense after a held-ball
- Eliminate 10-second backcourt rule
- Allow offensive team to decline free throws in final two minutes and overtime(s); opt for inbound instead
- Eliminate five-second closely guarded rule
- Allow instant replay on shot-clock violation in final two minutes/overtime on a missed shot
- Allow instant replay on basket interference/goaltending calls -- but only if/after an official calls the violation
Are any of these worth discussion?
Brian: I think they're all bad ideas that are rightfully headed for the trash bin of history, except... uh... they eliminated the closely-guarded rule four or so years ago?
BiSB: One of my pet rules is that the ball should go to the defense on a wedgie.
Brian: For one when a ten second call happens it rules. Ten second calls are always awesome, fact.
Ace: The closely guarded rule came up for elimination but stayed in the book. I can’t remember the last time I saw one called, though.
Brian: They don't even count it anymore?
BiSB: It's like the "you have 10 seconds to shoot a free throw" rule. The ref counts, but he counts like a parent threatening a 5-year-old.
Seth: It's definitely been in that realm calls that are made so infrequently the coach loses it when they do.
BiSB: "Four and a haaaaaaaaaaaaaaalf..."
Seth: This always bothered me as a kid: When you're counting down, if you add a half you're going in the wrong direction.
Anyway.
Brian: I have absolutely seen a player dribble with his back to the basket closely guarded for 10 seconds in late half situations.
Ace: NCAA refs, Brian.
Brian: I may be having a Mandela effect moment.
Ace: Regardless, I don’t feel strongly about it either way. As we’ve covered, they don’t enforce it, and there’s not enough slow post play to make me worried about its impact. The three-second rule in the paint is still there, too.
Brian: Closely guarded and three second calls should be dropped. Anyway, onto things that might actually happen...
Seth: Make the whole court out of lane?
Ace: Before we do, I just have to say that as someone who used to play a lot of pickup ball, I’d be on board with the “defense gets held balls” change even though it won’t happen.
[After THE JUMP: We find a way to embed The Shot]
-------------------------------
Laptops, tablets allowed on the bench for coaching purposes only
Ace: Starting off with a banger.
Brian: The Chris Hunter rule.
Seth: What a rule to have named after you.
-------------------------------
Tweak traveling interpretation to universally allow players to Euro step, use spin moves and step-backs.
Everyone complain about the travel on Hunter Dickinson’s legit Euro step in transition GO.
BiSB: I'm sure it will add clarity and clearly divide travels from non-travels.
Brian: This is a much different phrasing than the previous article from Norlander on these rule changes, which said you get two full steps after picking up your dribble. That seems like less of a tweak than a pretty big change.
Ace: This does seem like it’ll help clarify the rule in that refs will be inclined to let more gray area stuff go.
Brian:
Here are *possible* rule changes for MBB for next season, per NCAA rules survey. Six-foul rule—with conditions—is interesting! Sign me up.
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) April 14, 2021
Also: "Limit number of timeouts that may be called by any one team in the last two minutes of the second period or of any OT period or two." pic.twitter.com/iV4XCsvAS7
"Allow a player to take two steps after lifting his pivot foot."
Ace: That brings it much closer to the NBA rule, which is good.
Brian: I am not the travel expert man but it seems like those moves should be legal already and adding a second step is a big change.
Ace: Yeah, I’m all for allowing these moves. Nobody is here to watch refs call travels on cool plays.
Brian:
A eurostep lifts the pivot foot and then it doesn't come back down before the shot. I don't know that this tweak is actually needed.
Ace: I was in such a blind rage after this play that I feel it’s needed.
The NCAA is basically doing this:
Brian: Lol okay fair.
BiSB: It's confusingly worded, in that the euro-step is currently allowed (for anyone under 7' tall).
Seth: I wonder how many NBA scouts are watching that pass on Franz's highlight reel and realizing they called a travel after the fifth viewing.
-------------------------------
Ace: So those last two are the ones Norlander says are likely to be recommended. The next two are possibly headed for a two-year trial in the NIT, which is how we got the 30-second shot clock. The first:
Two-timeout limit per team with under two minutes in regulation and throughout overtime(s)
Brian: Any timeout restriction is a yes from me. We inch closer to the dream where to call timeout a coach has to shear off a digit and hand it to an official.
Ace: No further comment needed on that one, I think.
-------------------------------
Eliminate offensive basket interference and use FIBA rule instead: ball is always live after it makes contact with the rim.
I’m torn on this one because it fundamentally changes the game but the more I think about it the more I like it.
Brian: Tip dunks are cool but I feel like this is different rules for offense and defense.
Ace: Offensive rebounding died and this would help bring it back in a big way. Also: Michigan would be awesome at this.
Brian: I think the effect would be pretty small but that's a reason to support it because it doesn't change a whole lot but lets you go OHHHHHH a couple more times a game. This rule as stated is a little contradictory. Is the ball always live or only live for the offense? Probably the latter because no one wants to see shots that hit the rim get swatted after the fact.
BiSB:
Ace: The FIBA rule, via FIBA: “Once the ball strikes the rim, any player can play the ball (i.e. swat it away or tap it in).”
Brian: Whaaaat?
Ace: Michigan would be REALLY awesome at this. Can we ram this through committee before Moussa Diabate gets on campus?
Brian: I think that's a bridge too far.
Seth: I'm opposed. Tip slams are cool, swats are cool, but those moments when the rim has the ball and you're waiting on divine providence are INTENSE.
Brian: I don't watch enough FIBA stuff to know if post-rim swats are a thing people try to do a lot.
Ace: It’s not a game-changing occurrence.
BiSB: People can't just hover at the rim. There's at least some time for the ball to do its thing.
Ace: I vote yes for more cool plays. People will still be boxing out and fighting for rebounds, these won’t come free.
Brian: It is very much an NIT test drive thing, though. Let's see it in action before committing to it.
BiSB: OTOH, you would miss SOME cool plays.
Ace: Yeah, that’s fair. It’d be awesome to see that swatted out, too! Both are cool!
Seth: I'll admit playing the ball off the rim is more pure, since it rewards a shooter for more swish.
Ace: It’s worth a test run, for sure.
Brian: the sheer unfairness of the three that bounces high in the air and goes in is great though
Ace: Timing that up won’t be easy. I think the bigger effect would be on shots originating near the rim.
BiSB: The number of own goals will greatly increase, too... and those are fun.
Seth: I assume FIBA still makes you play outside the rim, IE you can't go up and under to play it, or grab the rim to hoist yourself, etc., which are part of the basket interference rule.
Ace: Yeah, you can’t do that.
-------------------------------
Alright, now the two rules that Norlander has in the “big debates await” section:
Introduce quasi quarters by resetting team fouls at 10-minute mark of each half. Begin double bonus on fifth foul within each 10-minute segment. This eliminates the one-and-one free throw
Brian: No, no, and no. The one-and-one is great. No Michigan fan can support this.
Ace: This is a weird half-measure to preserve halves and commercial breaks, too. So: nah.
Seth: I am against it because Michigan doesn't foul, and because Tom Izzo wants it so bad.
Ace: It’s also impossible to argue against The Shot. I cannot do it.
Brian: The one-and-one rewards not fouling a ton, increases late game drama, and provides an uncomfortable tingle when your team is subject to it. It is amazing and any attempt to undo it is monstrous.
Ace: Next!
-------------------------------
Modified six-foul rule: player is allowed three fouls per half (would be disqualified if they committed four fouls in a half). However, a player can commit two or three first-half fouls and have as many four or three more to use for the remainder of the game, allowing for six total.
WHY IS THIS SO COMPLICATED?
Brian: Right?
Ace: I’m also against any measure that enforces autobench on principle.
BiSB: In English: you foul out of the first half with four, and out of the second half with six.
Ace: Just give them six fouls.
Seth: Just keep them to five fouls.
The Mathlete: Get rid of individual fouls!
Ace: Let’s hear The Mathlete out here.
The Mathlete: How do individual foul counts make the game better? Good players go to the bench so worse players play more.
Brian: The drama of THIS GUY GOT TWO FOULS is a real dual-edged sword.
The Mathlete: Any offensive action designed to draw fouls on an individual defender is also bad basketball.
Brian: I am very torn about it.
The Mathlete: If the idea of what is a basketball foul was able to be applied at all consistently, the existing rules make sense, but right now it’s mostly unnecessary randomness.
Ace: It does encourage some extra skill on defense but fouls down low are so, uh, we’ll go with “tough to call” on the college level that I get the argument here.
Lol, for the readers, those two messages came in at the same time.
Brian: When the Big East went to six fouls everyone hated it, FWIW. It opens the door for Izzo teams to play football even more than they already do.
The Mathlete: If players don't have an individual limit, it allows the refs to call it more consistently.
Ace: Oh man, that graph is no good. Do not want.
Seth: I am with The Mathlete here if they significantly reduce total fouls allowed. Otherwise you're allowing the guards to soak up fouls and encouraging Big East Ball.
Brian: Fouling out is extremely punitive but I think it has to be to actually keep people trying to play within the rules. I might be in favor of not counting offensive fouls as personals?
The Mathlete: THAT'S WHAT THE FREE THROWS ARE FOR.
Ace: The math man has a point.
Brian: Okay but when FTs are the only way to dissuade we see that there is a massive parade to the line and that sucks to watch.
The Mathlete: Two free throws are 1.5 PPP.
Ace: Brian also has a point.
The Mathlete: So there is already a huge disincentive to foul a lot.
Seth: That disincentive hasn't stopped fouling as a strategy even with fouling out at five.
Brian: When Cs are going up near the basket I think that equation changes and hard foul limits are better at preventing intentional FTs given.
The Mathlete: Now I'll concede that point.
Ace: Given the block/charge roulette we live with, I’d be in favor of eliminating offensive fouls as personals. They already don’t give you bonus free throws because you’re already getting a turnover.
Brian: Yeah and moving screens are always so chintzy and unevenly called. I don't think there are major aesthetic problems if you don't count offensive fouls as personals.
Ace: Would we want to see the six-foul rule tried in the NIT? It’s a very different game now than in the early ’90s, after all.
The Mathlete: The six foul rule doesn't do anything for me. Make it 12 or get rid of it!
Seth: I think the correlation between allowing more fouls and more fouls committed is going to exist regardless, and I want fewer fouls.
Brian: I don't think I'd even want to see it tested. I think it's a dead letter.
BiSB: My suggestion is to eliminate fouling out, but make every foul after a certain point two shots and the ball.
Brian: For a player? Or team?
The Mathlete: now that's an idea if you want to keep player fouls in place. You don't foul out, but any foul above a threshold is 2 shots and the ball.
Seth: That eliminates The Shot.
Ace: That’s a huge penalty and adds more free throws.
BiSB: For a player. Hunter Dickinson picks up his 5th (or 6th), and he can stay on the floor... but if he commits a foul, it basically acts as a flagrant 1.
Ace: Eliminating offensive fouls as personals would really help the stuff they’re trying to take care of here. College stars are often big men and big men commit easily the most offensive fouls. We’ve all become obsessed about everyone’s backup center because of the possibility they end up playing 25 minutes. Testing that in the NIT would be great.
Seth: I would love to see data on offensive fouls for big men, particularly our own.
Ace: An offensive foul is still a turnover so there’s not an incentive to start bashing people in the post.
The Mathlete: So our proposal is to keep the limit at 5 personal fouls but get rid of the DQ, offensive fouls don't count against the total and any personal fouls after 5 are 2 shots and the ball?
Ace: Keep the limit at 5, keep DQs, eliminate offensive fouls as personals. Ditch the rest.
Seth: Right. We have a consensus on eliminating offensive fouls from the personal count. The rest no.
The Mathlete: Fine, it's just my proposal.
BiSB: Have we considered "no blood, no foul?"
Ace: Let’s wait until Brad Davison is gone.
Brian: By then we'll have rocket cars to the moon.
One thing I never understood is when a team inbounds the ball in their frontcourt they can throw the ball into their backcourt. To me, that should be over and back” since they’ve already established possession in their frontcourt.
this all day
I believe the thinking is that when the ball is out of bounds it is neither in the front nor the back court; it isn't in play. Which is why you can't shoot from out of bounds.
Having said that, I kind of agree. I like rewarding good defense.
to make it over and back would be a tremendous advantage to the defense
Yeah this is great if you like timeouts on inbound plays
So limit the timeouts
I believe the closely guarded rule was changed... When a player is dribbling it is no longer counted. Only when they're holding onto the ball.
This was my understanding of that rule...
That is my understanding as well.
This is exactly the rule. The fact that 5 guys that follow and write about Michigan basketball don’t know this rule is kind of mind blowing.
Correct. Only while holding the ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-second_rule_(basketball)#Five-second_closely_guarded_violation
I’d be on board with the “defense gets held balls” change even though it won’t happen.
Getting credit for a whole ball when you only have possession of half the ball is entirely consistent with Ace’s philosophy of life.
Or it just benefits the defense for playing....defense well.
phenomenal post
Jeezus man
Go outside and get some fresh air
Held-balls should go to the defense. It means they're doing their job and the offense is failing to properly care for the ball.
How do individual foul counts make the game better?
(looks at Brad Davison)
Any timeout called out a dead ball (eg, inbounding the ball) uses a TO but teams are not allowed to huddle up. The ref simply starts the inbounds play over and the 5 second count resets.
If a coach wants to call a different play after seeing the defense or something, he'll need to prep that with his team ahead of time.
So then you inbound it and the guy calls a timeout immediately.
If you don't want too many timeouts called in the final minutes, just limit them.
His scenario is when the inbounder can't make the pass in. So he calls TO at the ref's 4 second count. But then we go to the sideline and 4 minutes later try again after another commerical gets slipped in.
Instead, reward the team with the TO and no turnover but no huddling at the sideline and wasting the viewer's time.
I understand that, but it seems odd to focus only on that particular type of timeout, when there are lots of non-desperation timeouts called, too (such as teams calling them after they've scored). You wouldn't be saving that much time by only doing this.
I get the math on free throws, but even with DQs teams still foul a ton to prevent easy shots. Without fouling out, players have even more incentive to hack the shit out of guys on dunks and lay ups and that’s crap basketball. Plus, you’re trading the current premium on defending without fouling for a premium on free throw shooting, since guys who stink at fts will be basically unplayable. I’m not sure I like any of that.
If you want to keep fouls from disqualifing players, I say make a real radical change— after your fifth foul, the other team just gets 2 points when you foul. I know everyone is stuck on the idea that points can only be scored if the ball goes through the hoop, but free throw parades suck. Make a foul after 5 = 2ppp and teams will avoid it excessively because of certainty bias.
Agree. Teams that foul more should be penalized more.
Agree in part but then you are rewarding guys that can't shoot unfairly. Can you imagine trying to defend a player at the end of a game up 1 knowing that if you foul it's an automatic loss when the offense is trying to draw a foul and is awarded two points without ever hitting a shot. That would suck.
No to swatting the ball off the rim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChT3ewZXTfM.
Seth: This always bothered me as a kid: When you're counting down, if you add a half you're going in the wrong direction.
"Ten, nine and a half, nine, eight and a half, eight ... " This is how normal people count down using halfs and it most definitely isn't going in the wrong direction. If people ADDED a half when counting down, they're morons.
I think he just means by adding in the extra time to say "and a half," you're technically adding time to the "countdown."
but the countdown isn't "seconds until you're in trouble." at least it never has been in my family. it was always "when I hit zero and you haven't knocked that shit off you're in trouble"
but I guess it all depends on how it's used
Yeah but isn’t it usually “I’m going to count to three”? Like one, two, two and a half, three
No more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
"...skip ahead a bit, brother..."
Okay then I must be the only one who had coaches who consistently did this at every level.
One...One and half.... One and three quarters....TIME'S UP!
It also took me a few times to finally learn that a coach in the process of trying to get his team to hustle is probably not looking to improve his mathematical acumen that moment.
What is the objection to allowing the offense to decline free throws and opt for an inbound at the end of games? It just doesn't make much sense to me why the rules should be structured such that it's to the defense's advantage to commit a foul.
Outside of foul-baiting that has become so prevalent in both the NCAA and NBA, the amount of fouling at the end of the second half/overtime that drags out games by an extra 15 minutes makes the games much harder to watch (and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.)
If the answer isn't to give the offense the option to decline the free throws, what alternatives are there?
Deliberate fouling can lengthen the end of a game, but can also lead to dramatic finishes (as in 2013 Kansas or 2018 Houston).
Allowing the team with the ball to keep it whenever fouled would make comebacks much harder to pull off. That's not worth saving a couple of minutes of real time.
Yeah, that's the catch. If you let teams choose to keep the ball, it basically eliminates comebacks.
I'm not sure it would eliminate fouling either, because there's probably a better chance to get a steal off an inbounds pass than a trap. Teams would still foul, there would just be endless inbounds plays instead of FTs.
I think the offense would only elect to inbound the ball if the player who got fouled is a poor free throw shooter. If the player they foul shoots 90% from the line, the offense could just take the free throws.
The defense basically has to figure out if they have a better chance of getting a steal on the inbound than the offense being able to pass the ball into a high % free throw shooter.
I mean, those games were nice because they happened to fall in Michigan's favor. But in the same way I'd hate to be on the losing side of a game that we clearly outplayed the other team over 39 minutes for just because they resorted to Hack-a-Shaq techniques on a poor free throw shooter in the last minute.
And perhaps it makes it more difficult for comebacks to happen, but if it results in coaches emphasizing inbound defense in practice, we could potentially get more games like Texas A&M vs. Northern Iowa in 2016 where they hardly relied on intentional fouls and just got steals off of inbounds passes.
I'm just trying to look at this from a neutral fan perspective since it seems like Michigan has fortunately been the benefactor of the current rule more often than not (at least in recent memory.)
I fully agree. Name me another sport where violating the rules (e.g. committing a foul) conveys an advantage.
Yes, the 2013 comeback against Kansas was sweet. But I also remember the 1991 home game vs. Duke (I guess that's not "recent memory" except for us old guys). Late in that game UM had a slim lead when Chris Webber got bear-hugged under the basket while going up for an easy dunk; he missed the free throws and Michigan ended up losing.
Maybe shortening the shot clock in the last 2 minutes would be another way to allow more possibilities for comebacks without skewing the rules so much (and reduce the perceived necessity of fouling by the trailing team).
Would love to see the intentional "unintentional" fouls in the final minutes get called intentional: FTs & possession.
Make the defense actually attempt a steal, in which case a foul is a legitimate foul. But all the times they just reach out to impede a player and everybody knows the foul is an intentional attempt to foul, should be called intentional. After all, the foul is intentional, no?
I have no idea why they would want to mess around with the number of fouls per player. As noted, it's mostly just going to be a longer leash for smashmouth basketball teams and that's annoying for everyone. I know some NBA fans bemoan that 2004 Pistons team winning the title with tough/"thuggish" defense but they were legitimately quite good at defense (#2 D rating) and had a league-average offensive rating along with it. If you let college defenses foul more, though, you wouldn't get that style of play; you'd just get guys hitting drivers to the hoop more. It would be boring and slow down the college game even more than it already is. Hard pass.
I like the idea of the ball being live off the rim. If you can time a swat you should be able to, and conversely if you can jump 6 inches more than everyone else you should be able to ram the ball home.
Being good defensively and cheap/dirty aren't mutually exclusive. I cheered for those Pistons teams, but without question they played ugly, dirty basketball. Bill Laimbeer was a helluva basketball player, but he'd never get away with his dirty play today - and the game is better for it.
Offensively they were average in an era of awful. Laimbeer was ahead of his time as an inside/outside big who could shoot threes. He, Thomas and Joe D were all terrific playmakers.
I think it should be twelve, not ten. That's how long it takes me to gather my composure and limbs. Just saying.
Wow, interesting discussion, but I disagree with almost all their conclusions. It feels to me like they didn't play much basketball or watch much NBA. Neither is necessary to understand the game, but are useful in understanding the consequences proposed rule changes.
Let's start with the worst proposal - no personal fouls, just team fouls (no one can foul out). Ugh. Imagine the Bad Boy Pistons where it's impossible to foul out - mayhem. Izzo would just have his goons constantly hack opponent's best players, and smart coaches/players will maul poor FT shooters the second they touch the ball. It would be worth it to constantly reach in, because sometimes you'd get a steal. Basketball becomes wrestling. C'mon Mathlete, that's just dumb.
Their proposed solution is to award 2 shots AND the ball after 5 fouls. That would certainly remove the incentive to foul, make games shorter and eliminate end of game fouling - but also make comebacks almost impossible. A team up 4 with the ball and a minute to play pretty much can't lose.
The other suggested rules basically mirror the NBA, and embrace the worst aspects of NBA play IMO:
Traveling - LeBron and Harden are fantastic players, yet to me they're infuriating to watch, because they're smart/savvy enough to twist lax traveling rules (especially as applied to superstars). Harden's jab step, push the defender then hop away step-back was traveling for 100 years - now it's an unstoppable move. LeBron's "two steps" often become 4 or 5 on his bull rushes to the basket. Traveling is enforced unequally at all levels - bigs are often penalized because their steps are longer and less graceful. NBA rules (and lax enforcement) allow ridiculous romps from the 3 point line to the basket - resembles rugby. Jordan, Curry and LeBron are so great they don't need the added advantage of traveling, but they're smart enough to take advantage if the refs allow it. College traveling rules at least limit how much stars can get away with.
No Charging - If this rule existed Russell Westbrook would be MVP every year. There would be huge incentive to bulldoze to the rim every play. An uncontested layup is 2 points, and hurtling into guys on the way to the basket gives you a great chance at 3 and puts opponents in foul trouble. Defenders wouldn't risk fouling trying to draw charges because the best outcome is just a turnover.
The problems aren't with the rules as written, they're in poor officiating/enforcement. Some guys are allowed a euro-step, some aren't. Traveling is called sometimes, allowed others. Some guys/teams/games constant fouling is allowed, others get called for basically nothing. Flopping is rampant. Work on better and more consistent officiating, not silly rule changes.
Totally agree on the Harden move. The so called gather step should only count if going toward the basket imo.
Yeah if we’re gonna make the ludicrously lax traveling even more lax to reward “wow moves” (read: cheating) then why not just eliminate dribbling altogether.
Five total fouls. However, during a play resulting in a personal foul, an additional foul is awarded for every testicle that the perpetrator comes in contact with. The Brad Davidson Rule if you will.
Ex. "Moving screen" = 1 foul. "Moving screen that tags Lefty" = 2 fouls. "Moving screen that gets them both" = 3 fouls aka "Brad Davidson hat trick".
Contact of quantity of testicles in contact is playground honor system.
Mathlete needs to bone up on stats.
Two free throws only expects to yield 1.5 PP if you are shooting 83% as a team.
Pretty sure you need to shoot 75%, .75 * 2 = 1.5
Rules rule?
Comments