"New" Rules (Proposed)

[SycfromBirth]

Does anyone have a take on the new proposed rules? http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ules+committee+recommends+restricted+area+arc

I will also note that the Women's committee is proposing that the 3pt line be moved back to the same distance as the men (which would be nice).

 

[Sycamore Proud]

I do understand some of the logic involved, but it annoys me that the NCAA is making the college game more like the NBA game. Not a wise move in my opinion mostly due to my contempt of the NBA approach of the game. I love basketball; not too impressed by the pseudo game endorsed by the NBA. I'm too much old school hoops to enjoy the pro game.

 

[Wujboy39]

I'm definitely not a fan of the arc down below the basket. This completely changes the way the game flows. The most frustrating part of these types of rule changes is refs are not consistent in their enforcement.

 

[Sackalot]

I don't like it, I understand it and see the point in terms of "safety", but still I don't like it. It has the ability to change the game in a way that favors scoring rather than defense which I am against.

 

[dr. bucket]

anything that takes away one more judgement call from the refs and offers something concrete to go by i'm in favor of. they don't call charges in that area of the floor anyway even though by rule they should

 

[sycamorebacker]

I see the point that someone standing under the basket is not playing defense, but is it right that you can run over someone to score regardless of what they are doing there? If a player is getting position for the rebound is it ok to drive into them and knock them out of bounds?

 

[dr. bucket]

I see the point that someone standing under the basket is not playing defense, but is it right that you can run over someone to score regardless of what they are doing there? If a player is getting position for the rebound is it ok to drive into them and knock them out of bounds?

huh?

 

[sycamorebacker]

huh?

I've heard the argument that someone standing under the basket is not in a legitimate defensive position and is not trying to prevent you from scoring so it is NOT a charge. So I guess that means if someone is not guarding you, it is ok to run over them.

 

[dr. bucket]

I've heard the argument that someone standing under the basket is not in a legitimate defensive position and is not trying to prevent you from scoring so it is NOT a charge. So I guess that means if someone is not guarding you, it is ok to run over them.

i think thre is someting in the rule about a secondary defender under the basket not being able to take a charge. does anyone have the text of the ncaa rule? that might clear things up some.

 

[sycamorebacker]

i think thre is someting in the rule about a secondary defender under the basket not being able to take a charge. does anyone have the text of the ncaa rule? that might clear things up some.

That's my point, I guess. I see the reason for the rule. But I still don't see why an offensive player has the right to run over someone to get to the basket.
I guess if he comes down on someone After the shot, that would be a good no call.

 

[dr. bucket]

That's my point, I guess. I see the reason for the rule. But I still don't see why an offensive player has the right to run over someone to get to the basket.
I guess if he comes down on someone After the shot, that would be a good no call.

if the guy is standing under the basket (it's a smaller arc than the nba), the ofensive player has already gotten to the basket and is no doubt in the air. no running over in that case

 

[sycamorebacker]

if the guy is standing under the basket (it's a smaller arc than the nba), the ofensive player has already gotten to the basket and is no doubt in the air. no running over in that case

Well crashing into him then. What's the difference?

 

[BankShot]

I do understand some of the logic involved, but it annoys me that the NCAA is making the college game more like the NBA game. Not a wise move in my opinion mostly due to my contempt of the NBA approach of the game. I love basketball; not too impressed by the pseudo game endorsed by the NBA. I'm too much old school hoops to enjoy the pro game.

Nothing like having an "expert" from New York (St. Peters )as Chairman of the next Rules Committee...:imslow:

Truly sad that the disciples of the "urban thug style" are now polluting the NCAA game to their benefit, virtually destroying the BASIC tenements of the game, which is rooted in T-E-A-M principles. So what now, a weakside defender will never get a "charge" against a Phi Jamma Slamma?

We saw it 1st hand v. Syracuse in the NCAA Regionals...now they want the rest of the country to model the "Big East" style.

Bullshit...:violent:

 

[dr. bucket]

Nothing like having an "expert" from New York (St. Peters )as Chairman of the next Rules Committee...:imslow:

Truly sad that the disciples of the "urban thug style" are now polluting the NCAA game to their benefit, virtually destroying the BASIC tenements of the game, which is rooted in T-E-A-M principles. So what now, a weakside defender will never get a "charge" against a Phi Jamma Slamma?

We saw it 1st hand v. Syracuse in the NCAA Regionals...now they want the rest of the country to model the "Big East" style.

Bullshit...:violent:

tenets; tenements are where the thugs live. i had to laugh.

 

[BankShot]

I covered both concepts, didn't I? That's called "comprehensive grammar."