PDA

View Full Version : NCAA rules committee addresses charging issue and other items



CDC84
05-07-2009, 03:10 PM
I have been waiting for this day to come for years and years, and it has finally arrived. Thank you Mr. Adams for your efforts and for saving the beauty of the game we all love so dearly. If your officials will consistently enforce it, teams will no longer be rewarded for playing bad defense by allowing one of their players to collect a charging call directly underneath the basket.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=546606


We've really created another absolute," said John Adams, the NCAA's coordinator of officials. "If you're a secondary defender and you're under the basket and you take contact, you're guilty of a block." This change became imperative when the NCAA extended the 3-point line by another foot and forced colleges across the country to paint a second arc on their courts last summer. The whole idea behind that move was to open up the court so players could drive the ball and make the game less stagnant. Forcing defenders to be more judicious about when/where to jump in front of ballhandlers will help that directive succeed. The rules committee did not ask schools to paint a line on the court to designate the no-charge zone. Because it's defined as extending from the front of the rim to the face of the backboard, it'd be a fairly small area. It seemed unnecessary to put another mark on college courts already as busy as a Jackson Pollock canvas.

Some other issues that will be emphasized:


If a player is injured while being fouled and cannot attempt free throws, the coach of the opposing team can designate the replacement shooter from among the other four opposing players in the game.


It's like those suspense books where the detectives keep saying to each other, "We're missing something obvious." It's possible the answer to cleaning up rough low-post play -- another aspect of the game that has vexed the rules committee for decades -- is simply to enforce the 3-second rule. If an offensive player must be mindful he can't take up space in the lane for longer than three seconds, it's unlikely he'll engage in a wrestling match with a defender for a spot on the block. He'll have to be more active, more fluid.

Mr. Adams just took over the coordinator position about a year ago. He is determined to clean up college basketball officiating across the board. There are limits to his power, but he's going to be very proactive. Hopefully the conferences will hop on board as well. He's also determined to make sure the NCAA tourney features the best officials as opposed to guys who have been around forever.

Zag 77
05-07-2009, 04:27 PM
It sounds like the NCAA will not use a painted arc on the floor to designate the zone where charging won't be called as in the NBA. Seemes dumb. You will just have one more thing for refs to be criticized for, based on where they are standing and have a clear view of the play.

it's defined as extending from the front of the rim to the face of the backboard,

OK, so the ref has to have a computerized, 3-D geometric brain. Just paint a damn line on the floor.

Angelo Roncalli
05-07-2009, 04:36 PM
I respectfully disagree with my friend CDC.

I don't view this rule change as an improvement. Neither does Jerry Krause.

It essentially means that a defensive player who comes to help has no right to that spot on the floor.

I think it allows for more bailouts for poor offense (dribble down the lane and jump in the air) than poor defense. This rule is especially punishing to defenses that play tight zones.

a13coach
05-07-2009, 04:54 PM
I agree with the Pontiff on this.

The whole idea behind that move was to open up the court so players could drive the ball and make the game less stagnant.
Does anyone actually think that the action in college basketball is stagnant? That rule has NBA input all over it. Some one should check the books on Mr. Adams for entries that might coincide with NBA books debits.

There are many times when a defender or two, heck the whole arena for that matter, knows exactly what the offensive player is going to do and so the defender hustles his ass off and gets to the spot in time to set up camp and wait for the hit. Why punish him for that, especially when more often than not the offensive player has had his head down the whole time. Hockey players know what to do to a player who puts his head down on the way to the net, they do not complain.

This rule is just going to change the game and not for the good. How do you define a secondary defender for a team that is playing zone? Is he the big guy in middle while the primary defender is the guard/wing on the perimeter or is he the 3/4 who drops down to help when the zone perimeter gets beat?

May rant some more later. :mad:

zagar
05-07-2009, 09:34 PM
Not that it matters, but I will have to disagree with CDC here. I am usually in line with his stance, but not on this one. A charge has everything to do with position, nothing to do with who it is that is defending/offending. As well, I'm against the line on the floor. Position is position.

CDC84
05-07-2009, 11:39 PM
This is my complete take on the issue. I think this is one of these issues that people are either going to agree or disagree on. I have never lost my argument, but I've never won it either in the sense that I was able to convince someone to join my side. That's fine. But it's also really hard to present an argument like this unless you show video footage of specific calls to demonstrate your point.

I am an ardent believer that by definition, you cannot defend the basket while you are directly underneath it. If you watch Syracuse play zone, you generally don't see their 5 man standing right underneath the basket. It would be bad defense. You see him defending in front of the basket because his job is to defend the hoop and influence a high percentage shot before it goes up. If he's standing right underneath the hoop, how is that defending the hoop? The only thing he can do underneath the basket once an offensive player is that close to the rim is either foul the guy or flop in an attempt to get a charging call. Once an offensive player gets so close to the basket to where the only why he can draw contact with the defender is if the defender is right underneath the hoop, you just can't reward flopping. It's rewarding a team for not playing defense.

The example I always use for why I feel a change is needed is Jeremy Pargo's amazing dunk against Western Kentucky two years ago at the Great Alaska Shootout. Jeremy beat the perimeter defense and was completely unguarded going to the basket. As he was in mid air and within two feet of jamming the ball, a WKU help defender slid right underneath the basket. Jeremy's knees grazed this guy's shoulders one second before he jammed it. The result was his 2nd foul, which influenced the course of that game for Gonzaga. The WKU help defender wasn't defending the shot whatsoever, and Jeremy was in complete and total control of his drive. The officials rewarded the Toppers for not stopping him. If you saw the video replay, you would know exactly what I am talking about. And this kind of player control foul has been issued at least one time in every college game I've seen since Shane Battier popularized the move earlier this decade while he was at Duke. It's become a fashion.

The problem I have with the NBA's arc is that it extends way too far away from the basket. Offensive players can be out of control on that area of the floor. This is where I agree with a13coach. There are legitimate player control fouls, and they should continue to be called. When they aren't called, I don't like it.

But what Adams is talking about - as I see it - are offensive players who are in total control of their drive. If an offensive player beats the perimeter D and is so close to the hoop to where he can only draw contact with a defender who is directly underneath the rim, I just don't see how the offensive player is out of control. The offensive player is not getting an unfair advantage. And I'm also a believer that the offensive player's right to safely land underneath the basket after he puts up an extremely high percentage shot supersedes any right that an opposing player has to that space.

I don't see how trying to eradicate flopping underneath the basket is an attempt to bring the NBA influence into college basketball. Now if they elected to put that NBA arc in, then I would have grave concerns. Then you would see offensive players barreling into defenders, and the defenders picking up ridiculous blocking calls. That would be rewarding the offense for gaining an unfair advantage. I don't like that.

It's also worth keeping in mind that while Coach Krause and others may disagree with this idea, Adams isn't making these decisions out of thin air. Coaches have some say in influencing decisions like this, and I just don't think this idea would be put in place unless most coaches wanted it emphasized in some form. I emphasize some form, because I could see some coaches not being happy about floppers underneath the hoop being assigned a blocking foul. They would prefer a no call.

I happen to believe that assigning a blocking call is necessary because the flopping problem has so influenced the college game that making it a no call isn't going to dissuade kids from continuing to do it. If you are stuck underneath the basket and incapable of defending the rim, you are better off flopping with the hope that the ref might accept your acting job. It's much better than doing nothing or picking up an unnecessary foul that could lead to a 3 point play.

That's just how I see it.

mgadfly
05-08-2009, 03:32 AM
I'm also against this "no-charge" zone idea. If a team wants to put all five guys right around the rim and have them stand there in perfect position an offensive guy shouldn't be able to run them over for a dunk. The offensive guy should have to learn to pull-up for a two-foot jumper.

Maybe we should have other areas of the court where some rules won't be enforced. A "no-travel" zone, not having to dribble would really speed up the game. A "no-foul" zone, that might help defenses that like to press and trap and it'd make it really easy on the officials.

If you get to the spot before an offensive player takes flight, that is good defense and should be rewarded. Anywhere and everywhere on the court.

MickMick
05-08-2009, 04:40 AM
Regardless of the rule set, officials are human. They will make mistakes. I agree with the spirit and intent of the changes. Having said that, the changes will not eliminate poor judgement calls.

If enforced, I expect the new emphasis to be on speed from the guard position. A race to the rim. Goodson and Vilarino should benefit greatly from this. It shows that Mark Few is on the cutting edge with respect to recruiting the types of players needed.

DADoZAG
05-08-2009, 08:41 AM
Position is position.

+1

a13coach
05-08-2009, 01:23 PM
The example I always use for why I feel a change is needed is Jeremy Pargo's amazing dunk against Western Kentucky two years ago at the Great Alaska Shootout. Jeremy beat the perimeter defense and was completely unguarded going to the basket. As he was in mid air and within two feet of jamming the ball, a WKU help defender slid right underneath the basket. Jeremy's knees grazed this guy's shoulders one second before he jammed it. The result was his 2nd foul, which influenced the course of that game for Gonzaga. The WKU help defender wasn't defending the shot whatsoever, and Jeremy was in complete and total control of his drive. The officials rewarded the Toppers for not stopping him. If you saw the video replay, you would know exactly what I am talking about. And this kind of player control foul has been issued at least one time in every college game I've seen since Shane Battier popularized the move earlier this decade while he was at Duke. It's become a fashion.


Problem here is that the existing rule was not applied. The ref blew the call. Jeremy had left his feet before the defender was set/had position, it should have been called a blocking foul. They should not be making rules just because a ref screws up. If a goal tending calls are being messed up do we change the rule that the offensive player has to wait until the ball is not only outside of the rim but also below it before he can touch the ball?

BobZag
05-08-2009, 03:09 PM
INDIANAPOLIS -- Recommendations regarding defense under the basket and substitute free throw shooters for injured players have been made by the NCAA's Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committee.

The committee met from Monday to Wednesday in Phoenix, and the recommendations for men's games only are subject to the approval of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which is scheduled to meet via conference call on June 3.

The recommendation on play under the basket won't call for a restricted-area arc painted in the lane as the NBA has, but it prohibits a secondary defender from establishing position in the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard. A defender must establish position outside that area to draw a charge or player-control foul.

"In our surveys and rules forums, the coaches wanted the committee to address the increasing contact that seems to occur under the basket," NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor for Men's Basketball Ed Bilik said. "Instead of an experimental rule, this clarifies how officials are to call this play throughout the season."

In the proposal of substituting for a free throw shooter who has been injured, the opposing coach would choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court.

"This rule change is intended to eliminate a team that is fouled from gaining an advantage that it does not deserve," said Dick Hack, chair of the men's committee and athletics director at New York-Maritime. "We believe this is a solid proposal that will not unduly penalize the team that was fouled."

In this year's NCAA tournament, Missouri coach Mike Anderson took advantage of the current rule to have freshman Kim English come off the bench to take two free throws for J.T. Tiller, who fell hard and hurt his right wrist when he was fouled with 5.5 seconds left and the second-round game against Marquette tied at 79.

English, who had played little in the second half, made both free throws and the Tigers went on to an 83-79 victory.

There was a recommendation for both men's and women's games that would officials to use a monitor to review a play and determine if a flagrant foul occurred. When a flagrant foul has not occurred, the committee would allow the officiating crew to penalize a player with an intentional personal or a technical foul for contact.

MDABE80
05-08-2009, 03:58 PM
The player who comes to help out when the primary defender has missed his assignment MUST NOT be penalized. If the new rule prohibits that, it must be rethought. AsI read it, the rule does just that. The consequences of calling a foul on the defender who's helping out are pretty significant if he gets a foul called or can't establish position. What would be the point of such a rule?

CDC? Can you clarify further please?

zagar
05-08-2009, 04:18 PM
I am an ardent believer that by definition, you cannot defend the basket while you are directly underneath it.

CDC,
I definitely see where you are coming from, but allowing for a catch-all rule about where the player is (let alone if it is a primary or secondary defender, which should not matter) does not take into account all situations. Under the scenario in which you cannot defend the goal by standing underneath it, players would not be able to defend a player when he dribbles baseline and gets caught between the basket and the out line. I would argue that the defense is playing defense by standing directly under the hoop in this situation because it forces the offensive player to make a difficult pass or put up a low percentage shot. Rather than a catch-all rule about position or defender, the NCAA should have improved the assessment process for officials to ensure that the rule that was in place was being called correctly and consistently.

CDC84
05-08-2009, 04:32 PM
I think this tibdit from the official presser that BZ just posted describes the new rule quite well. Actually they don't call it a new rule, but a clarification:


The recommendation on play under the basket won't call for a restricted-area arc painted in the lane as the NBA has, but it prohibits a secondary defender from establishing position in the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard. A defender must establish position outside that area to draw a charge or player-control foul. "In our surveys and rules forums, the coaches wanted the committee to address the increasing contact that seems to occur under the basket," NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor for Men's Basketball Ed Bilik said. "Instead of an experimental rule, this clarifies how officials are to call this play throughout the season."

It's worth noting, again, that these decisions are not being made in some secret board room. If most coaches hated this idea, it wouldn't have been implemented.

lothar98zag
05-08-2009, 04:47 PM
for the record, my opinion matches CDC's on this issue

MDABE80
05-08-2009, 08:17 PM
Gamus Interuptus in spades.

ZagNut08
05-08-2009, 09:51 PM
I was hoping they would do something about flops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0upQDkY-pg

RenoZag
05-09-2009, 06:30 AM
In the proposal of substituting for a free throw shooter who has been injured, the opposing coach would choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court.

So that penalizes the team that has lost the player since the opposition coach will pick the player--out of the remaining 4-- with the lowest FT shooting %.

Seems like they went too far; why put that choice in the hands of the opposing coach? Let the coach of the team with the injured player choose which player from the remaining 4 on the court at the time of the foul.

I think teams with players who can take it to the hole will be encourgaed by this change to be more agressive; remove the likelihood of the ticky tack offensive foul call and we might see more penetration in the key.

ExtremeJim
05-09-2009, 09:17 AM
This thread has gone a long way toward helping me satisfy a curiosity I've long had about the folks who post here: Which of you are short, and which are tall?

"Taking a charge" is the province of players who aren't really tall enough to be playing the game in the first place, plus a few Euros (Vlade Divac was famous for it) and assorted floppers (one of Josh Heytvelt's less-endearing characteristics.) For short people, taking a charge is "gritty defense" or "shows heart." For tall players, having defenders try to slide under or in front of them while they're exercising their God-given right to drive to the hoop and throw down ranges from a nuisance that ought to be legislated out of the game to the threat of a career-ending injury for which instant death should be the penalty.

I don't have an opinion about taking charges out on the perimeter; it's little to me what the guards are doing out there before or after they feed me the ball and get out of the way. But just so you little guys know, any time I drove for a layup or a dunk and some squirt tried to trip me with his whole body and call it "gritty defense," no matter what my hands were doing with the ball up above, I was trying to drive your chin into the back of your skull with my right knee.

Think about that, the next time you try to "take a charge" under the basket. This new rule is for your own protection.

75Zag
05-09-2009, 10:03 AM
The change to the offensive charge rule will finally give some much needed help to UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Duke, and the other BCS/Elite schools who do not appreciate it when their NBA-bound supersized post players get called for charging while running over those pain-in-the-ass smaller players who are foolish enough to establish position in front of them.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

MDABE80
05-09-2009, 10:39 AM
Big, small, short, tall....doesn't matter. It's the new rules of the college game that catches my eye. I'm not sure how this will work out. My guess is that much of the new goings on will have to be tempered when the results are seen and experienced.

Not sure I like either rule as they're stated. Time will have to tell. Much of reffing is unequal application. In this case, even if the refs equally apply the new rules, I'm not sure things will be better. My thought is the new "palming" rule. It's a nice idea..a holdover from the 60's/70's but did it add much besides confusion? I didn't/don't think so. If this type of thing is the new "template" for rule changes I'm not so sure what there is to gain......Just an opinion.

applezag
05-09-2009, 11:37 AM
I side with those who oppose this change. CDC, while advocating for the other side, make my point for me. If a guy wants to stand under the basket waiting for someone to charge, he is in poor defensive position. The offense's job is to make a good decision to take advantage of this. That good decision is not driving hard into the basket. Someone is open, or they can shoot a short pull-up shot. This change will not have a huge impact on the game, but I still would prefer to keep it simple: if the defensive player has established position on a spot of the floor before the offensive player leaves the floor, it is his as long as he stays there. The offense gets plenty of advantages in this game, it does not need more.

zagar
05-09-2009, 12:26 PM
[A]ny time I drove for a layup or a dunk and some squirt tried to trip me with his whole body and call it "gritty defense," no matter what my hands were doing with the ball up above, I was trying to drive your chin into the back of your skull with my right knee.

Think about that, the next time you try to "take a charge" under the basket. This new rule is for your own protection.

Since when is intentionally trying to hurt someone sporting, fun, or funny?

Dumb.

ExtremeJim
05-09-2009, 02:27 PM
Since when is intentionally trying to hurt someone sporting, fun, or funny?

Precisely. Why is a "secondary defender" with no chance whatever of stopping the play undercutting the offensive player, except to assault him?

He should only be allowed to do that once, and it's preferable that the limitation be imposed by rule of law. In the absence of same, the larger players will have to police the bad behavior themselves, and you, as a spectator, won't be happy with the result.

MDABE80
05-09-2009, 07:52 PM
lollllllllllllllll...............From Stripes (1981)
Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Lighten up, Jim. It's only a message board.

Ziggy
05-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Precisely. Why is a "secondary defender" with no chance whatever of stopping the play undercutting the offensive player, except to assault him?

He should only be allowed to do that once, and it's preferable that the limitation be imposed by rule of law. In the absence of same, the larger players will have to police the bad behavior themselves, and you, as a spectator, won't be happy with the result.

Welcome to Extreme J; Champion of Thuggery everywhere! Some kind of BB Darwinism, eh? "Hey Shorty get outta my way, I gotta dunk it 'cause I can't shoot it."

edcasey
05-09-2009, 09:40 PM
the shame of making this kind of rule is the unintended consequences

this type of rule basically negates the overall court dimensions as it gives the offense a "free zone" from which they get to work without worrying about defensive pressure.

The real issue in my book with this carte blanc type of rule is not the straight away or diagonal drives in which defenders come to help. Creating this "free zone" really hinders the defense now on baseline drives. THIS RULE now gives the defender no opporutnity to defend the baseline driver who now comes back towards the basket for a layup, reverse or dunk from baseline inward...any contact with this type of driver who now jumps back towards the free throw line will be a blocking call....

reeks of NBA and desire to open the paint up to allow more "freedom"

Champion757
12-15-2009, 04:31 PM
Hey guys. I'd like to share an article detailing some concern I have with the college hoops no-charge zone after coming across this thread. Members here are very keen to the intricacies of college basketball and after reading this thread, I'd like to respond to some of the comments I've read and why they are so important. Anyway, here's the article.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/story/227670.html

Champion757
12-15-2009, 04:48 PM
the shame of making this kind of rule is the unintended consequences

Well said, edcasey. This no charge zone screams unintended consequences and subtle changes into the strategy we see in games this year.


this type of rule basically negates the overall court dimensions as it gives the offense a "free zone" from which they get to work without worrying about defensive pressure.

Yeah, this is a problem and I really admire how you put it so eloquently. This rule indeed negates overall court dimensions as it gives an offense a "free zone" from which to work without worrying about defensive pressure.


The real issue in my book with this carte blanc type of rule is not the straight away or diagonal drives in which defenders come to help. Creating this "free zone" really hinders the defense now on baseline drives.

Yeah, exactly. This is only part of it, but probably the biggest part of it. This makes princeton offense backdoor cuts impossible to defend when a player receives a back door cut and tries a reverse layup. It doesn't happen that much, but when you have a player driving down the baseline, as a defensive player, you are in trouble. And that's not good.

But it's more than just baseline cuts. It's driving to the hoop from the elbow. It's feeling entitled to And-1s regardless of whether the defensive player is set. It's the decision making of teams in zone defense, in terms of whether they will stand their ground or hack away and go for a block. It's the inability to let the referees evaluate the situation and make the call which the referee thinks is best. In my book, all this confusion takes away from the way a basketball game should be played, as zone defense has always been a huge part of the game. This rule makes 1-3-1 zones much less effective, and makes it damn near impossible to play the rare 1-1-3 zone. If you read that article that I posted, the concern I have here is that pandora's box has been opened starting this season in college basketball.

What i mean by this is UNC coach Roy Williams suggested that the new "no-charge" zone under the basket should be painted on the floor. And although I appreciate Coach Williams's observations that calls that were charges in years past are now being called blocks, I don't like the fact that they seem to think that an arc needs to be painted on the floor, which by the way will not be able to occur until the 2011-2012 season, when the new NCAA rule book is put out.

So we basically have a situation where there is going to be confusion throughout college basketball until 2011, where no one knows exactly what to do when a player drives to the hoop. So we are essentially in "limbo" until then, and then since pandora's box has been opened, there eventual solution will likely be to paint a line on the floor, which will make huge games be decided by whether a player's foot is on a line near the basket. This is going to change the little thing that we know and love about the game of basketball, whether we realize it or not.


THIS RULE now gives the defender no opportunity to defend the baseline driver who now comes back towards the basket for a layup, reverse or dunk from baseline inward...any contact with this type of driver who now jumps back towards the free throw line will be a blocking call....reeks of NBA and desire to open the paint up to allow more "freedom"

This rule gives the defender no opportunity to defend all the scenarios on a basketball court, only some of them.

The challenge of being a sound defensive team, whether you are playing zone or man-to-man, is to make the difficult decision of making the best play given what the opposing offense is trying to do. And although flopping has become a problem to some people in the media, it is clear that sometimes the best play is to stand your ground and take contact from an out of control dribble driver.

This rule screams unintended consequences. It is a media driven change with the result being to limit defenses and create higher scoring games regardless of whether defenders are playing sound defense or not. not to mention create confusion throughout college basketball.

The rule may seem small on the surface, the rule may seem insignificant on the surface, but in implementation, the rule is a very large rule change that has and will continue to change the way the game is played, the 50-50 balance of offense / defense, until the rule is deleted from officials vernacular. And no that absolutely does not mean painting a line on the floor in 2011. That is not the correct solution.

CDC84
12-15-2009, 04:53 PM
This change is not going away because the rules committee consists of many current coaches who represent other coaches throughout the country. They almost universally wanted the change. These kinds of changes don't happen in some secret board room with a bunch of administrators and media members who aren't active in the game.

I felt this article from Seth Davis outlined things quite well, including why an arc wasn't put in place this season (rightly or wrongly, I expect to see an arc at some point):

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hoop_thoughts/posts/84001-ncaa-to-regulate-incessant-flopping-under-basket


Many fans mistakenly believe that there has long been an explicit rule against taking a charge under the basket. The misconception existed because referees generally followed an unwritten rule that even if a defender established position, the play should result in a no-call –- sort of like the way baseball umpires treat the "neighborhood play" by allowing an infielder to get an early jump off second base while turning a double play. In May, the NCAA's men's basketball rules committee decided that a no-call in this situation wasn't good enough. It put in writing that an official must call a blocking foul. That rule will go into effect this season.

"This change is a very good attempt at stopping the incessant flopping that's been going on for years," says Siena coach Fran McCaffrey, who joined the rules committee this month. "In the past, the ref wouldn't call anything. He'd say, 'Get up, you're flopping.' Meanwhile, a guy missed the shot because the defender disrupted him."

Still, many coaches, McCaffrey included, believe the committee did not go far enough because it declined to put an arc on the floor to clearly delineate the new restricted area. At the ACC's media day this week, Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski called that decision (or non-decision) "a joke." There is also a strong sentiment among officials in favor of having an arc similar to the one the NBA uses. "It certainly would help the referee if we have a line painted," says John Clougherty, the ACC's officiating coordinator. "They have to referee a guy's feet but they're taking a guess on it. How accurate would they be if we had an imaginary three-point line?"

It would seem obvious that if the committee members were going to pass this new rule that they would also put in the new line. So why didn't they?

The biggest reason was they couldn't agree on just how big the arc should be. The new rule calls for the restricted area to extend from the front and sides of the rim to the backboard, which is approximately 24 inches by 18 inches. That is considerably smaller than the NBA's arc, which stretches eight feet in diameter. "The NBA wants the offense to have a huge advantage anywhere near the basket, but we didn't want to create that," says Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz, a member of the rules committee.

By deciding not to establish a line right away, the committee left itself some wiggle room for next year. The members can see how the rule worked this season and then decide if they want to put a new line on the floor, and if so how big it should be.

The second reason the committee balked was procedural. In 2003, the NCAA created the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (or PROP) to streamline the process by which rules get put into action. (I know, just what the NCAA needs: more bureaucracy.) These rules are now being implemented in two-year cycles, and since men's college basketball is beginning the first year of the new cycle, the NCAA is supposed to wait another year before putting major changes into effect. Ty Halpin, the NCAA's liaison to the rules committee, told me that if the rules committee felt strongly that there should be a line on the floor this season, it would have gotten done, but the more the members learned about this process at their meeting, the more it gave them pause. Some speculated that the committee was worried about the cost of requiring schools to add an arc, but Halpin told me that was not a factor. It's far less expensive to draw a new line than it is to move a line that already exists, as the committee required last year when it extended the three-point line. A bigger concern was the aesthetics of making such a drastic change. To put yet another line on an already cluttered court, the folks in that meeting would have had to be really committed to it.
In the end, the committee erred on the side of caution. "

229SintoZag
12-15-2009, 05:04 PM
Anyone know what blocking call Coach Roy Williams was referring to in the linked article posted by Champion757?:


North Carolina coach Roy Williams was watching the Gonzaga-Michigan State game last month when he saw the perfect example of why the new "no-charge" zone under the basket should be painted on the floor.

"The Gonzaga kid was standing there [and] his feet were on the lane line, so it was nowhere close to being underneath the basket," Williams said recently. "He'd already gotten out his iced tea, added the sugar to it, added the extra lemon, got back in his perfect stance and the guy ran over him and the referee comes out and calls it 'block.'

"... In my mind, there's no way [the official] wasn't thinking about that stupid imaginary line."

CDC84
12-15-2009, 05:09 PM
I remember the play Roy is referring to, but I don't remember the specific player. I do remember that it was Olynyk or Sacre, and it happened in the 2nd half. And Roy Williams is 100% correct....Rob or Kelly were well in front of the hoop. It was a bad call. But I've seen officials make bad calls like that many times before this season, so I don't know if the change can be directly blamed for the mistake.

Champion757
12-15-2009, 05:47 PM
This change is not going away because the rules committee consists of many current coaches who represent other coaches throughout the country.

This is precisely the problem with bureaucracy in college sports. For of all, the fact that the rules committee consists of "many current coaches who represent other coaches throughout the country" is inherently flawed. This is elitism clear and simple. This is saying that a select few "popular or chosen" coaches can make changes and that the changes they make represent all other coaches in the country is just a fancy way of saying "even if you don't agree with it, too bad since you don't have the power, we do". That's basically totalitarianism in the world of college sports.


They almost universally wanted the change.


Not true. This change was prompted, put on the table if you will, through media-influenced "focus groups". Another fancy way of saying the committee decided to look at a small group of media personnel who (in their small circle of opinions) decided to push this on the committee. Prior to this change last year, there was a survey that stated that approximately 2/3s of current coaches were in favor of a no-charge zone in some form. So, that means that approximately 1/3 of the current coaches did not think that a no charge zone was appropriate. Although not the majority, that's an awful lot of coaches that were against the rule change. (and any subsequent rule changes on this matter moving forward) That's hardly universal support of the rule.

Considering that from my eyes, probably less than 1/3 of the teams in division 1 college basketball really pride themselves on team defense, I'd say it's a way for coaches who believe in high scoring offenses to bully coaches who believe in team defense. And look, lo and behold, it's happening, and will continue to happen.


These kinds of changes don't happen in some secret board room with a bunch of administrators and media members who aren't active in the game.

I am not so sure of this. Considering how many coaches have spoke out against this rule change in its current form, I'd say this did happen in a board room in a debate format. After all, is this rule change not some sort of a compromise in its very nature? Of course it is. They knew that they had to do something because this was pushed on them and they made a decision to change the vernacular of the way referees call fouls. (something that has never changed in the long, storied history of college basketball)

Champion757
12-15-2009, 06:00 PM
(rightly or wrongly, I expect to see an arc at some point):

I, like you, given what we have seen this offseason, and the "solutions" by coaches like Roy Williams, do indeed expect to see an arc at some point.

I expect to see it because the NBA has a no charge arc.

I'd like to point to a part of that Seth Davis outline that stood out to me. (proving that this was a compromise in the process)

"The biggest reason was they couldn't agree on just how big the arc should be. The new rule calls for the restricted area to extend from the front and sides of the rim to the backboard, which is approximately 24 inches by 18 inches. That is considerably smaller than the NBA's arc, which stretches eight feet in diameter. "The NBA wants the offense to have a huge advantage anywhere near the basket, but we didn't want to create that," says Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz, a member of the rules committee."

This is the problem with painting an arc on the court, because the "NBA wants the offense to have a huge advantage anywhere near the basket". This statement speaks volumes really in understanding that this isn't overwhelming support.

College basketball is not the NBA, or at least what the NBA has become. Unlike the NBA, college basketball has always allowed zone defense. The NBA added a no charge zone to combat how difficult it became to score when zone defenses were allowed in the NBA.

The NBA is an And-1 fest, with little help defense, because the rules do not allow help defense. Remember in the old days when zone defenses were not allowed in the NBA, and there was something called "illegal defense"? There's never been illegal defense in college basketball. Therefore, pandora's box has been opened to make college basketball more like the NBA.

Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz, a member of the rules committee does not want the "offense to have a huge advantage anywhere near the basket". Therefore, painting a line on the court in no uncertain terms would do exactly that. And this is why, even though I expect it to happen, any sort of painted arc would allow an And-1 fest in college basketball, which is already happening now thanks to this half-assed change, albeit with a ridiculous amount of confusion surrounding the game.

Very simply, why can't referees judge the action and make the call they think is appropriate? Why should they be pointing at the floor after calling a block as some sort of justification? This is going to cause defensive players to start hacking away since they know a block will be called, will it not?

If a player is rushing in under the basket after an offensive player is gliding through the air, is it not the referee's responsibility to look at the action and say "that move was late, and I'm going to call a block, or no call at all?" Isn't that the way it has always been? It's up to the referees to make that call, this change will do more harm than eliminating that potential mistake in judgment by the official.

NotoriousZ
12-15-2009, 07:21 PM
I still can't believe they put the rule in without drawing the arc. When they finally do draw it in, if it's as small as it's supposed to be (not NBA sized), they game will be much, much better to watch and way easier to officiate. The "imaginary zone" has killed us so far. And you're right Jonny, Kelly has had the worst of it so far.

:mad:

CDC84
12-15-2009, 09:38 PM
Champion - this is the first time I have heard of a good deal of what you are talking about, and I read 5 to 7 websites on college basketball on a daily basis and correspond with a lot of people. I'm sure you will probably say those people are a part of the covert media establishment. I'm sorry, but I'm not into the language of conspiracy theories about certain hidden totalitarian media entities trying to brainwash us all and ruin college basketball. I also don't view the NBA as the evil of purest basketball. It's the highest level of the game and it should be embraced. If you feel differently, so be it.

The incessant flopping that has been gradually building up in the college game since the early part of this decade has made the game less pleasing to watch for thousands of people. Not just media people. And its the fans that make this game count. Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys playing in some intramural game. There is genuine part of me that wants to take a big steel toe boot to some of the floppers, kick them hard in the shin, and tell them to get up off the ground, cowboy up, and defend someone.

webspinnre
12-15-2009, 10:57 PM
CDC, I do absolutely hate flopping. However, on the other side you have the fact that its now impossible to play defense if you're near the basket, as if there is any body contact, you'll always be called for the block, no matter how good your position. Thats just crazy. Draw the line, so that it'll actually be possible to play defense again outside of the line. I can't think how many times I've been thrilled with the great defense being played when all o fa sudden that defender is called for a block despite being stationary and the offensive player initiating contact.

EBE
12-16-2009, 12:17 AM
Flopping has very much taken over the game and many coaches recognize this and teach their players the fine art of flopping which has become a part of most teams defensive game plans. Flopping is a bad thing for the game and teams should be punished for doing it. If players are truly playing intelligent help side defense they can get to a position away from directly under the hoop and earn the charge. If players are allowed to arive late on weakside help and then flop to get a call then basically players will be discouraged from going to the hole hard. This doesn't mean that players should be allowed to run over defenders but if you break down tape and watch for the exact moment the offensive player leaves the ground it is very rare that a defensive player who is standing under the hoop got their in time. I think a charge circle would be good for the game as I dont believe it takes away from teams who play great weakside defense. By the way once the NBA adopted their charge circle the average number of charges called per game has gone up.

EBE
12-16-2009, 12:28 AM
It's possible the answer to cleaning up rough low-post play -- another aspect of the game that has vexed the rules committee for decades -- is simply to enforce the 3-second rule. If an offensive player must be mindful he can't take up space in the lane for longer than three seconds, it's unlikely he'll engage in a wrestling match with a defender for a spot on the block. He'll have to be more active, more fluid.

In addition to the great discussion about the charge/block issue I think that the discussion around the 3 in then key call is long overdue. Proper use of the 3 second call is a great way to clean up low post play and it also rewards defensive players who work their butts off to guard inside. It is very difficult to guard in the low post and if you look at how long the big guys are being allowed to post up it is usually for much longer than 3 seconds. When we changed to FIBA rules in BC making the key much larger the officials couldn't figure out why there was so much more physical play inside. I broke down tape of several games with my team and other teams and there were times where the bigs were being allowed to stay in the paint for over 8 seconds on many possesions. While clearly we do not want to see dozens of three in the key calls every game the strong officials understand how this call can actually allow for better flow in the game in the long run.

Champion757
12-16-2009, 04:48 AM
Champion - this is the first time I have heard of a good deal of what you are talking about, and I read 5 to 7 websites on college basketball on a daily basis and correspond with a lot of people. I'm sure you will probably say those people are a part of the covert media establishment.

I don't think anyone who voices their opinion on a website who are for the changes are part of a "covert media establishment".


I'm sorry, but I'm not into the language of conspiracy theories about certain hidden totalitarian media entities trying to brainwash us all and ruin college basketball.

I also am not into the language of conspiracy theories. I don't think the media entitles are trying to brainwash us and I don't think the media entities are consciously trying to ruin college basketball. They are indeed trying to better the game. I believe that in this case, for this particular change, they are going about it the wrong way, and I believe that in college basketball, there was no need to do anything at all as I do not believe the charge / block call needed to be re-defined. I believe that the no charge zone will do more harm then good in the long run. And based on the responses from other members in this thread, I am not the only one who sees it this way. At the same time, it's important to look at all views of this issue to try to make some sense of it.

I, for one, did not see excessive flopping as being a problem at all in past seasons. Sure flops have occurred over the past few years, but so what? If players are flopping, then the referee should not call a charge when one is flopping. Sometimes a player actually flops to avoid a collision. Like if a player is in position for a charge, but realizes he's too late, or the ball already went up, the player may flop just to avoid a collision. If a player falls over, it's always been up to the referee to evaluate the situation and make the appropriate call. A no charge zone isn't going to stop flopping. If there's a no charge zone, players will flop outside the zone.


I also don't view the NBA as the evil of purest basketball. It's the highest level of the game and it should be embraced. If you feel differently, so be it.

Me either. I also don't view the NBA as the evil of purest basketball. I think the NBA has done a great job for the most part. I do embrace the NBA. I think the no charge zone works for the NBA and I'm glad they have made changes like allowing zone defense this decade. But just as Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz says, "the NBA wants the offense to have a huge advantage anywhere near the basket, but we didn't want to create that" for college basketball. Even if you love the NBA, it's hard to argue that the NBA is a more pure form of basketball than college basketball. Still, it is the highest level of the game, so I don't feel differently regarding that viewpoint.


The incessant flopping that has been gradually building up in the college game since the early part of this decade has made the game less pleasing to watch for thousands of people. Not just media people. And its the fans that make this game count.

I don't believe that flopping makes the game less pleasing or more pleasing to watch. It's part of the charm of the game. It happens. It'll happen whether there's a no charge zone or not. And what does incessant flopping have to do with teams being able to play sound defensive and use fundamental rules of basketball? Realize this, the NBA didn't implement the no charge arc to decrease flopping. The NBA implemented the no charge arc to keep scoring up since they decided to allow zone defense this decade. The NBA also changed the 10 second backcourt violation rule to 8 seconds so teams have to dribble the ball up the court faster, to make teams score quicker. (to increase scoring throughout a game as well) The NBA did these things because when you allow zone defense, players are generally in better position to take charges, making it harder for teams to score over 100 points per game.

To me, and others who are against the idea of a no charge zone, the game is less pleasing to watch when their team cannot play help defense. (a vital part of the game for a lot of teams) The game is not pleasing to watch when a stationary defensive player gets run over by an out of control dribble driver, and the referee is forced to call a block, even though it was a charge. (like the play that Roy Williams observed) That to me is not pleasing to watch because there is confusion surround the game. It is not pleasing to players who pride themselves on defense. It is not pleasing to fans of those teams, players on those teams, coaches on those teams.

I take exception (respectfully) to your statement that "they almost universally wanted the change". The fact that 1/3 of the coaches that were surveyed on this issue last season were against the idea of a no charge zone is hardly universal support. Every coach has different values. Some coaches, as you suggest, teach flopping. Some coaches tell their players to block every shot and hack away. Some coaches teach sound fundamental defense.


Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys playing in some intramural game. There is genuine part of me that wants to take a big steel toe boot to some of the floppers, kick them hard in the shin, and tell them to get up off the ground, cowboy up, and defend someone.

See, I am with you here. otherwise it is just a bunch of guys playing in some intramural game. College basketball means something to me. I don't want the game filled with gimmick media-influenced rules. Not conspiracy theories, but actual confusing rules that make it damn near impossible to play defense, especially zone defense. I thought last year, it was one of the most exciting seasons in recent memory. And this year, we are forced into this confusing imaginary no charge zone. And the rules committee is to stubborn to admit that they made a mistake, and I fear that they will make it worse instead of correcting the mistake moving forward. And that's not to say that anyone who believes the no charge zone is a good idea is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's why I am here trying to understand what people think of the rule. I am not here to bash anyone. When I read this thread, it seemed like members here have a good sense of basketball, for or against the rule change, or somewhere in the middle (like for a painted arc, but against the imaginary zone)

I simply believe that the game was fine the way it was, and why should the floppers win? Why should people flopping result in defenses being unable to draw charges? I don't think that's the right way to go, but I do understand where you are coming from CDC84.

Champion757
12-16-2009, 05:05 AM
CDC, I do absolutely hate flopping. However, on the other side you have the fact that its now impossible to play defense if you're near the basket, as if there is any body contact, you'll always be called for the block, no matter how good your position. Thats just crazy.

That is crazy. But really, it shouldn't matter where you are on the court. If you are in position and stationary, and an offensive player barrels you over, it shouldn't matter where you are on the court. (whether your foot is on a line or not even) It should have to do with whether the defensive player is set. That's the way it's always been, until this season. The referees should be on the lookout for flopping, and if the referee determines that a player is flopping, then don't call a foul! What's so hard about that? To make the referee have to call a block is worse than a no call, it gives automatic points to the offense instead of being a turnover. That's worse than a no call!!


Draw the line, so that it'll actually be possible to play defense again outside of the line. I can't think how many times I've been thrilled with the great defense being played when all o fa sudden that defender is called for a block despite being stationary and the offensive player initiating contact.

It's not pleasing to see that happen. I hate when good defense is punished and an automatic And-1 or two shots are given. Seeing good help defense isn't the most common thing in the world. It's because it's hard to do and it's hard to get that call. You really have to earn it. But to tell the referees that they can't make that gritty charge call takes the thrill out of the game. It creates an offensive imbalance in the game. Drawing a no charge arc in college basketball will take the referee's judgment away from him. Instead of looking at whether the defensive player is set, he'll be looking at whether his foot is on the no charge line or not. And if his foot is on the line, he'll be forced to call a block. (which will results in two free throws or an And-1) That really doesn't make any sense if you think about it. All to "try to prevent flopping", which may not even occur on the play. Why is it okay to make the wrong call to "try to prevent flopping"?

Not only that, but it will change the way defenses play. If defenses have to worry about a no charge arc, then players anywhere near the basket will just go for the block or hack the player shooting, instead of getting into position to draw a charge. It'll change the whole strategy of zone defenses and just lead to all around confusion from my view.

It's important to let the officials do their job and not over regulate the game with gimmicks. A no charge zone, imaginary or painted, will not stop flopping. It'll still happen. But one thing it will do is that it will give the offense a huge advantage near the basket, something that Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz, a member of the rules committee, vowed not to create.

Champion757
12-16-2009, 05:42 AM
Flopping has very much taken over the game and many coaches recognize this and teach their players the fine art of flopping which has become a part of most teams defensive game plans.

Well I don't know if coaches really teach their players the fine art of flopping. But I'm not sure about this. Perhaps some coaches do. But I think coaches teach players how to get into position and stand their ground and put their hands up. I don't think coaches tell their players to fall over while playing defense. Some players, like Paulus on Duke, flopped a bunch of times and probably got some charge calls. And ya know what, they were probably the wrong call to make. But referees are human and they make mistakes. It happens in every sport. Look at what happened in college football with excessive replay reviews. Now everytime a player catches a pass in football. They have to pause the game for 5 minutes to check to see whether the player has trapped the ball or not. And sometimes it's hard to tell whether it was a catch or not. But in the meantime, now college football has clock rules, and they have to run the clock when players go out of bounds to make up the time it takes to check every play via replay. Now teams don't have the amount of possessions that they had pre-2006 and there is less football for us to watch. It's a slippery slope here fellas and we want the game overall to get better, not worse.



Flopping is a bad thing for the game and teams should be punished for doing it.

I agree. Flopping isn't good. But how should teams be punished? Should there be an automatic free throw if a referee determines there is a flop? That'd be the most subjective penalty ever. Imagine losing a game by 1 point because a referee ruled a player flopped and the team got a technical foul! If referees just made the right call, and didn't call a foul when a flop occurred, would there even be a problem? No there wouldn't be a problem. If flops didn't result in incorrect charges, then flopping has it's own consequence. If you flop, you are not in position to block the shot.


If players are truly playing intelligent help side defense they can get to a position away from directly under the hoop and earn the charge. If players are allowed to arive late on weakside help and then flop to get a call then basically players will be discouraged from going to the hole hard.

Right, exactly. And it's up to the referees to determine this. It's a difficult call to make, always have been. But why should players who play good help defense and actually are set and earn charges be penalized by the players who flop just because the referees sometimes make a bad calls? That's like saying if my neighbor goes into bankruptcy, I have to pay for his mortgage out of my savings! But I guess that's kinda where America is headed at the moment, so it's not entirely surprising that this logic has entered into the world of sports. But it doesn't mean it's right to tilt the game to the offense at the expense of good sound defense.


This doesn't mean that players should be allowed to run over defenders but if you break down tape and watch for the exact moment the offensive player leaves the ground it is very rare that a defensive player who is standing under the hoop got their in time.

It may be rare, but it still could happen. Like what if a player is driving down the baseline and trying to make a reverse layup. As a defender, you could try to block the ball at the precise moment that the baseline driver comes out from under the basket to try to make the reverse layup. But if you are playing a 1-3-1 zone, it's much more effective to stand ground in the way of the player (sometimes under the basket, or near the backboard) and make him pass or try to dribble around him. Otherwise, defensive players will just move aside and let the baseline driver just have an easy layup since they don't want to pickup a personal foul since the referee has to call a block in that area. And, we aren't talking about necessarily being under the basket. You could be shuffling your feet as a zone help defender standing in between the basket and a player driving from the elbow (with one foot on the no charge arc). You could be set and the offensive player is running you over, and the referee has to call a block. That's what's going on right now. That's what Roy Williams is complaining about. That's what happened in the Gonzaga - Michigan State game. "The Gonzaga kid was standing there [and] his feet were on the lane line, so it was nowhere close to being underneath the basket," Williams said recently. "He'd already gotten out his iced tea, added the sugar to it, added the extra lemon, got back in his perfect stance and the guy ran over him and the referee comes out and calls it block." How is that fair to the Gonzaga team? How is that fair to the Gonzaga kid who was set? Michigan State got a chance at two free points when it should have been Gonzaga ball and a personal foul on the charger from Michigan State.


I think a charge circle would be good for the game as I dont believe it takes away from teams who play great weakside defense.

I don't see how it could help teams that play weakside defense if they can't draw charges close to the basket. It can only help the offense since referees must call blocks in situations where charges would have been called otherwise like in years past.


By the way once the NBA adopted their charge circle the average number of charges called per game has gone up.

Well, again, keep in mind that the NBA implemented the no charge arc when they finally allowed zone defenses in the NBA. Before then, teams that played zone were called for "illegal defense". So of course charges went up when they allowed zone defense. It's easier to draw charges from zone defense positions, when you aren't chasing your opponents in man-to-man. But it has more to do with allowing zone defense than the no charge arc.

College basketball has always allowed zone defense, unlike the NBA. The NBA added the no charge arc to increase scoring.

Champion757
12-16-2009, 06:06 AM
I don't view this rule change as an improvement. Neither does Jerry Krause.

It essentially means that a defensive player who comes to help has no right to that spot on the floor.

I think it allows for more bailouts for poor offense (dribble down the lane and jump in the air) than poor defense. This rule is especially punishing to defenses that play tight zones.

Couldn't agree more Angelo. This rule is especially punishing to defenses that play tight zones. And it looks as if their "solution" to the imaginary no charge zone is to punish defenses even more by creating a painted line on the court, which will clutter the court even more! It will also create more violent collisions. Because instead of a defensive player getting into position and trying to draw contact from a stationary position, players (knowing that they will be called for a block near the basket whether they are moving or set) will feel the need to jump up into the oncoming offensive player trying desperately for a block at all costs, thus creating more dangerous situations with two players colliding then falling to the floor at awkward angles.

Champion757
12-20-2011, 05:10 AM
Two years later...now there is a painted no-charge arc on the court. is it better? i wish they never even started talking about this following the 2008-2009 season. it's these friggin media elites tinkering with the game from their perch. it could be so great now if they just left well enough alone. every change just fills the boat up with more water. where are the real fans who see these shenanigans and clearly identify the bad change that is coming. sure, we fans are helpless to do anything but accept it and now it's too late to do anything about it. But still, as a practical matter, why don't we talk about what changes you guys are noticing. college basketball was doing so great through the 2008-2009, then it all changed. why don't we talk about the real stuff that happened from that season on and how we arrived at this point? we are humans. i know there are fans out there who watch college basketball closely. i know i'm not the only one. why don't we continue this discussion two years later?

Two years ago, both myself and CDC84 stated that we expected the line to be painted. how do you feel CDC84 about the no-charge zone saga in general? Wasn't there something, anything at all, about the game without the no-charge zone that you miss?

bartruff1
12-20-2011, 09:24 AM
I don't like any change (3 point shot for example) but the coaches that succeed and survive, adapt. My dad taught me that pissing against the wind was not a good idea. I had to be told.

CDC84
12-20-2011, 10:25 AM
Two years ago, both myself and CDC84 stated that we expected the line to be painted. how do you feel CDC84 about the no-charge zone saga in general? Wasn't there something, anything at all, about the game without the no-charge zone that you miss?

What I miss is pre-mid 90's college basketball when there was no arc and when defenders weren't flopping all over the place underneath the basket.

My overall assessment: what was predicted to be a "saga" has turned out to be a big nothing. There has hardly been any discussion about it on this board. Same thing goes for other college basketball sites. You don't hear D-1 coaches and college basketball writers/commentators complaining about it either. It's just a big nothing. Someone had to revive a post from 2009 for it to be a discussion topic on this message board again. That speaks volumes. I am sure there will be posts that follow mine from people who don't like the no-charge zone, but if it were really all that bad, we would be discussing it on a regular basis at this site. Discussion about it has been non-existent.

I continue to support the no-charge zone and will continue to until the day I die. We had two non-BCS teams in the final 4 last season, and I don't think it's had the negative effect on college basketball that some said it would. It's just made the game more fluid and the floor less cluttered.

I don't have a strong opinion on the arc right now. I don't know if it is really necessary as I don't notice a difference in the amount of blocks (as opposed to charges) that are being called compared to last season when there wasn't an arc. I know a couple of people who support the no-charge zone but who don't like the arc because it forces officials to spend too much time looking at a defender's feet when they need to be paying attention to more things besides just that.

Champion757
12-20-2011, 10:43 AM
I don't like any change (3 point shot for example) but the coaches that succeed and survive, adapt. My dad taught me that pissing against the wind was not a good idea. I had to be told.

Yeah, I was indifferent to the 3 point line being extended. in theory it made sense with 3 point shooting percentages increasing, but what made no sense about it was that the women's line wouldn't be extended, so from 2008-2011 we had two 3 point lines 1 foot apart. now finally after 3 years of beauracracy, the women decided to move their 3 point line to the new men's 3 point line.

What bothers me more than anything is that the NCAA seems to implement things without thinking them through. so it only took them 3 years to have one 3 point line for men and women once again. 3 years of having 2 lines. despite all this, during this time we had an "invisible no-charge zone". now we have a painted no-charge zone.

i realize this probably doesn't annoy the average fan that much. most people probably don't care, but obviously some people do care and have been noticing it. before i posted here there was already a page and a half discussion about this with conflicting opinions regarding the no-charge zone. pissing against the wind probably isn't a good idea, but don't you think the NCAA is the one pissing against the wind by implementing a no-charge zone in the way that it has? I mean, there's never been a no-charge zone in the history of college basketball. It seems quite radical.

question to you bartruff1. do you think that there is any correlation between the 3 point line moved back in 2008-2009 and the talk of a no-charge zone immediately following the 2008-2009 season? Mere weeks after the season ended there was this huge ESPN-led discussion about how a no-charge zone was needed to curb "flopping". how is prohibiting flopping more important than being able to play defense?

My thing is like, what's done is done. i'm not expecting the no-charge zone to go away. after all this is the NCAA and it's already been painted on all the floors. but i'd like to get a consensus on to what fans are observing this season with the zone. is it as confusing to you as it is to me? has it changed the way defenses play? why can't we talk about this? this is basketball strategy and the game just doesn't seem as natural to me now as it did before the no-charge zone.

i don't know about you, but i miss just seeing players set charges and seeing what the offense did. wasn't that part of the strategy of the game that we've enjoyed throughout the years? surely moving the 3 point line back a foot probably resulted in defenses being pushed farther out on the perimeter, opening up some space down low for driving. maybe in 2008-2009 teams went inside more because making a 3 point shot was slightly harder, and that led to more collisions.

it just seems to me that they are trying to fix problems that do not exist, and in doing so, they are creating problems and changes to the game that no one likes but don't want to admit. we all want to like college basketball however it is, and since the no-charge zone exists now, it's understandable that it's more about the teams than the rules. sure coaches that succeed and survive adapt, but i think the fact that coach's want to succeed is what is prevented them from objecting and shooting down the no-charge zone in the first place.

it just seems like the thought process behind the no-charge zone is so flawed that it's staggering. there's gotta be some people out there that see how ridiculous it is.

Champion757
12-20-2011, 11:09 AM
What I miss is pre-mid 90's college basketball when there was no arc and when defenders weren't flopping all over the place underneath the basket.

Me too. but don't you agree that flopping in theory has it's own consequence? if refs just identified the flopps and didn't call a charge or a block, then problem solved. Right? All the NCAA had to do was make refs aware of the fact that players flopped. It's always been a tough call, but before the no-charge zone, they were still able to play defense. and now, even with the no-charge zone, players can still flopp, right? only now they flopp less since there's basically no benefit to standing in for a charge near the basket. so they are forced to do something else.


My overall assessment: what was predicted to be a "saga" has turned out to be a big nothing. There has hardly been any discussion about it on this board. Same thing goes for other college basketball sites. You don't hear D-1 coaches and college basketball writers/commentators complaining about it either. It's just a big nothing. Someone had to revive a post from 2009 for it to be a discussion topic on this message board again. That speaks volumes. I am sure there will be posts that follow mine from people who don't like the no-charge zone, but if it were really all that bad, we would be discussing it on a regular basis at this site. Discussion about it has been non-existent.

yeah i saved the thread and thought i'd comment on it two years later now that the arc is painted just to see what you guys thought about it now that it's here. i've found a few discussions about it on the net, but sure it's not exactly headline news.


I continue to support the no-charge zone and will continue to until the day I die. We had two non-BCS teams in the final 4 last season, and I don't think it's had the negative effect on college basketball that some said it would. It's just made the game more fluid and the floor less cluttered.

Fair enough, and your comment about how you miss pre-mid 90's basketball with the arc makes a lot of sense. I can agree with that, though I don't know how you could argue that it makes the floor less cluttered. any time you add lines to the floor that matter in the strategy of the game, I think that makes it more cluttered and complicated. less natural, less like the pre-mid 90's.

as a sports traditionalist, i always am wary of rules that are implemented as a result of player tendencies. sure sports evolve over time, but there's nothing wrong with trends changing form decade to decade. maybe one decade more teams play man-to-man, then the next decade more teams play zone. the rules are the rules and i think it's important that things stay fairly consistent over time. as a player, you should be able to flopp and it should have it's own inherent consequence. if refs are calling charges when players are flopping, then rectify that in a referee meeting before the season. don't you think that it's part of the game for offensive players to identify where defenders are and try to avoid colliding with them during the shot?


I don't have a strong opinion on the arc right now. I don't know if it is really necessary as I don't notice a difference in the amount of blocks (as opposed to charges) that are being called compared to last season when there wasn't an arc. I know a couple of people who support the no-charge zone but who don't like the arc because it forces officials to spend too much time looking at a defender's feet when they need to be paying attention to more things besides just that.

Great point CDC. This is how i feel about it too. since they are so concerned with the defenders feet not being on this new line that they aren't focusing on the body language, collision, and severity of contact like they used to. that's my basic problem with it. i think the block / charge was one of those things that varied from referee to referee. i think it was interesting that last year before they painted the arc refs still called charges close to the basket. i thought that was cool of the refs to subtly go against the "invisible zone".

I appreciate your comments CDC. I respect your support of the arc. I'm just trying to understand what you like about it. I personally always thought of attempting a charge as sort of a ballsy play, a way for the little guy to catch those out of control big boys who just try to run you over driving to the basket. i don't think we should reward that type of brute force in college basketball, and that seems to be what the arc is doing, like it does in the NBA.

rijman
12-20-2011, 12:31 PM
Me too. but don't you agree that flopping in theory has it's own consequence? if refs just identified the flopps and didn't call a charge or a block, then problem solved. Right? All the NCAA had to do was make refs aware of the fact that players flopped. It's always been a tough call, but before the no-charge zone, they were still able to play defense. and now, even with the no-charge zone, players can still flopp, right? only now they flopp less since there's basically no benefit to standing in for a charge near the basket. so they are forced to do something else.

I feel as though I'm seeing more defenders go to the floor after contact with a player going to the basket without a call. This has ocurred a number of times in Zag games. It seems to me the refs are watching for the flops and letting them play on. Of course, that will probably change when we get into conference play with the WCC refs.

bartruff1
12-20-2011, 12:41 PM
Was the anti Alcinder Rule to end dunking....eventually, they recinded that.. at least in games...they had to put in the shot clock, cuz teams would just hold the ball against UCLA...I often wonder if the stuffy old white men that make rules are trying to solve problems or stay relevant...

Zag4Hire
12-20-2011, 01:22 PM
I feel as though I'm seeing more defenders go to the floor after contact with a player going to the basket without a call. This has ocurred a number of times in Zag games. It seems to me the refs are watching for the flops and letting them play on. Of course, that will probably change when we get into conference play with the WCC refs.

Definitely in WCC games. It essentially resembles a stagnant sort of jumpshot game because nobody wants to go at the rim as they would get tagged with the charge. Been said many times before but it is not the call that needs tweaking if referees aren't buying in and practicing what the committee preaches. The semi-circle under the hoop helps but this call of block/charge will always be the one getting coaches, players, and fans riled up during the game. Perhaps the committee could also address the 1 or 2 games per season where the refs go on a run of calling 3 in the key on Gonzaga need to stop as well.

zaguarxj
12-20-2011, 03:45 PM
Was the anti Alcinder Rule to end dunking....eventually, they recinded that.. at least in games...they had to put in the shot clock, cuz teams would just hold the ball against UCLA...I often wonder if the stuffy old white men that make rules are trying to solve problems or stay relevant...
Dean Smith at North Carolina perfected the "4-corner" offense which let them hold the ball (and a lead) as long as they wanted. The shot clock was a direct response to the 4-corner offense.

04ZagFan
12-20-2011, 03:57 PM
Dean Smith at North Carolina perfected the "4-corner" offense which let them hold the ball (and a lead) as long as they wanted. The shot clock was a direct response to the 4-corner offense.

Is anyone actually opposed to the shot clock!? I mean, Boys high school ball just got it, and it was absolutely atrocious to watch people hold the ball with about 3 minutes to go.

kitzbuel
12-20-2011, 04:19 PM
Is anyone actually opposed to the shot clock!? I mean, Boys high school ball just got it, and it was absolutely atrocious to watch people hold the ball with about 3 minutes to go.
Did you ever watch the 1985 Villanova - Georgetown National Championship game?

Champion757
12-21-2011, 02:22 AM
I feel as though I'm seeing more defenders go to the floor after contact with a player going to the basket without a call. This has ocurred a number of times in Zag games. It seems to me the refs are watching for the flops and letting them play on.

Yeah and I think you're probably right. you say "after contact with a player", more defenders are going to the floor. so more defenders are going to the floor this year than last year? it's not surprising that there are more drives to the basket with the no-charge zone, i don't know how that makes the game better.


Of course, that will probably change when we get into conference play with the WCC refs.

And I think this is a fair projection and it's to the point that it's kind of a lets-see-as-we go situation. we really have no idea how referees call it in the conference season, that's what i mean by confusion. there wasn't confusion before, and now there's confusion as to how refs will call the game. from what you are saying, it sounds like there are more no-calls than in past years and more defenders hitting the floor. The fact that refs are calling more no-calls is a result of not being able to call charges. They are resisting the temptation to become like the NBA and just make every drive to the bucket an automatic 2 free throws because they know that's wrong. so they try to offset the practical effect of the no-charge zone by not calling a charge or a block. The refs cannot call the charge, and players know they can't draw charges near the basket, so the game balance changes. I know it might seem like a small thing, but if it were such a small thing, then why was it needed in the first place?

The option to not call a block or charges has always been there. If refs decided to call less fouls and let glancing contact occur more often, then that's fine. but the problem with that is that the less strict they are in calling fouls, that might cause players to collide more knowing that they can get away with more since refs won't call fouls as much. we've already had a few fights this year so far. so it seems to me now refs have to sort of play this balancing act now of not calling fouls because they don't want to tilt the game in favor of the offense like it is in the NBA, as a result of players not setting as many charges, and now defensive players have to build their defense around staying out of the charge zone. What's lost in this is before when defenses played the best defense required for the situation. It just seems to be different then how it used to be. Before the no-charge zone, it was just open-space, defenses didn't have to look at the line and set their charge outside it. that changes what the play would end up being, besides just the referee decision itself. even with the zone, players are still hitting the floor. the calls are still tough to make, and it's more complicated. coaches aren't speaking out against it because they are busy leading their team.

one other thing is that the european leagues also adopted a no-charge zone and now a no-charge zone is now apparently the international norm in basketball. this whole no-charge zone thing is a "new" thing to basketball now throughout the entire world, yet there's so little talk about it. Maybe now they have more no calls on block attempts. and maybe when the conference season starts, as defenses get tired as the season goes on, they may call more defensive fouls. i always thought college basketball was a geometric tactical basketball game based on quick thinking, team work and instinct. a college hoops ref is not an easy job, and i just wish they were able to do their job like they used to without all this shenanigans. we didn't need it, really college basketball was fine. it seems like the instinct of players has been affected by the no-charge zone since now they are trying to navigate the arc and trying to set a charge just outside the arc instead of getting to the best possible position on the floor to set the charge.

Champion757
12-21-2011, 03:05 AM
Dean Smith at North Carolina perfected the "4-corner" offense which let them hold the ball (and a lead) as long as they wanted. The shot clock was a direct response to the 4-corner offense.

Good one. Yeah that 4 corner offense must have been very effective back then when you have a lead. although that is an example of player tendencies forcing a rule change, the shot clock was a logical addition to the game to prevent teams from just running out the clock when they had a lead. of course the shot clock used to be 45 seconds, now it's 35. And by the way, amidst all the no-charge zone talk, there was talk of reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds in college basketball in this offseason.

Taking into account everything, the shot clock at 35 seconds is fine with me, it gives teams long enough to work the ball around while keeping the game interesting. the shot clock is a much, much more simple and logical addition to basketball than a no-charge zone. basically the 4 corner offense with no shot clock was an exploit to run out the clock when you had a lead. so they fixed that exploit so that teams would be forced to shoot after a while. that actually makes sense and I'm glad college basketball's shot clock remained at 35 seconds and wasn't changed to 30 seconds this offseason.

Birddog
12-21-2011, 05:03 AM
The "4 Corners" offense wasn't an offense at all but it was offensive. It was simply a stalling strategy and would have ruined basketball had it become more popular. I'm sure the broadcasters absolutely hated it. I know that to this day I can't stand Dean Smith, mostly because I had to watch those excruciating UNC games back in the days when there wasn't so many games on the tube. I'd rather have a hemorrhoidectomy than watch that style.