bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on May 6, 2009 22:51:02 GMT -5
www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=49707"...The committees expanded the use of the monitor when available to allow officials to use the technology to review a play and determine if a flagrant foul occurred. When a flagrant foul has not occurred, the committee will allow the officiating crew to penalize a student-athlete with an intentional personal or a technical foul for contact. "...On the men’s rules side, the committee made two significant alterations. After discussing adding a restricted area arc at length, the committee instead decided to define the area under the basket and prohibit a secondary defender from establishing guarding position in that area. In the rules proposal, a secondary defender must establish position outside the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard. "...The men’s committee also approved a proposal dealing with a free throw shooter that is injured. In the proposal, if a student-athlete is fouled (without the foul being flagrant or intentional) and unable to attempt the free throws, the opposing coach will choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court."
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on May 6, 2009 23:01:25 GMT -5
Duke defense is going to look a whole lot different next season.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 6, 2009 23:03:12 GMT -5
yay charge circle!
wait [rereads that part]
So is it going to be a defined area or is up to the refs discretion? If its the later, we're still screwed
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on May 6, 2009 23:05:43 GMT -5
nice find.
on the free-throw shooting one, what was the old rule for when a player was injured? i had always wondered that. also, why are flagrant and intentional fouls excepted? what happens if a player is injured as a result of a flagrant/intentional foul?
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on May 6, 2009 23:09:20 GMT -5
"...the opposing coach will choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court."
I like that it has to be a player on the court, so as to prevent faking an injury to get a great free throw shooter on the floor. But it seems strange to have the opposing coach pick the player. Then again, it's a strange situation during the game anyway. Don't know how I feel about that rule change. I'm sure I'll be peeved the first time it works against the Hoyas...and love it when we pull it on Cuse or UConn.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on May 6, 2009 23:14:18 GMT -5
The change lets the ref assess a technical or intentional foul after looking at the video. Now the ref can look at the video for a flagrant foul, but the only option is to call a flagrant foul, which carries ejection.
The current free throw rule lets the injured player's coach replace him with a shooter. The paragraph implies that this would still be the case if it is a flagrant or intentional foul.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,896
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 7, 2009 0:47:29 GMT -5
I don't know if it was overturned or kept, but one of the rules committees approved the limited early entry time -- it's like a week now or something ridiculously short. Way to look out for the student athlete, NCAA.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 7, 2009 10:09:35 GMT -5
nice find. on the free-throw shooting one, what was the old rule for when a player was injured? i had always wondered that. also, why are flagrant and intentional fouls excepted? what happens if a player is injured as a result of a flagrant/intentional foul? The coach of the team with the injured player could pick which player he wanted to shoot the FTs - even a player from the bench. I don't get the restricted area thing. So you can't double team a post player when the second defender will be in the restricted area? Of course, it sounds like the restricted area is directly under the hoop. What good would it do to send a defender to that location?
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on May 7, 2009 10:18:14 GMT -5
I do not understand the second point either.
What is this "secondary" defender mean and how is it defined? If a player blows by the first defender and then runs into a defender that slides into position under the basket, is that the secondary defender. In my mind that is a primary defender at the point the player with the ball beat his man off the dribble. Seems very confusing and a very diffcult rule to officiate.
Why not just place a restricted area like the NBA? I guess Coack K lobbied the committee pretty hard. He will lose this fight eventually.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 7, 2009 10:21:40 GMT -5
i think you're right NC it's if a player slides over to help out on a drive. I don't like the NBA's arc but it might be because of camera angles it seems that that arc extends beyond the area jsut under the rim. If it doesn't than I have less of a problem with it. This NCAA one is fine because it's only under the basket. But in front of the rim you should be able to take a charge.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 7, 2009 10:39:56 GMT -5
I don't see the benefit of not adding the circle and leaving up to the refs' discretion.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,896
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 7, 2009 10:42:19 GMT -5
That arc rule doesn't seem to have anything to do with charges.
It sounds like you can't guard people under the basket. What a ridiculous rule.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on May 7, 2009 10:43:05 GMT -5
The secondary defender rule is the same rule as in the NBA -- not sure exactly about how big the restricted area will be. If you're the primary defender, a charge can still be called if you're in the restricted area in the NBA, just like it is in college. I'm not sure exactly how "primary defender" is defined, but it's a pretty easy concept to understand. You have to establish defensive position. If a guy blows by his man, a guy sliding in to take a charge is NOT the primary defender. That completely defeats the purpose of the rule. Just because the guy is in the best position to stop a basket doesn't mean he's established himself as the primary defender.
The "establishing guarding position" is solely for the purpose for block/charge calls. It's not making anything new illegal defensively.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 7, 2009 13:27:42 GMT -5
It sounds like the intent of the rule is to limit the sliding over of an off-ball defender and "drawing a charge" in the area "essentially" under the basket. Personally, I never liked the charge when position was established after the player with the ball had left his feet. I'm not sure if it was ever worded that way, but all through the 70's, you would hear announcers make the statement that you "have to let him come down" or you have to allow him to land. I don't know if/when that rule was ever officially in the book and if so, when it was altered. But in any case, I've never really liked drawing the charge by jumping in front of someone who has already jumped. It seems to me that the laws of physics would suggest that the offensive player has, in that situation established position, as once his feet leave the ground, there is very little deviation in where he is going to land.
Lastly, what exactly does "defining the area under the basket" mean? If they are "defining" it, wouldn't that suggest that it be marked as such? And if so, what's the difference between the "arc" and the marked, defined area under the basket? I don't think we have answered questions, but just changed what the questions are.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 7, 2009 13:31:18 GMT -5
That arc rule doesn't seem to have anything to do with charges. It sounds like you can't guard people under the basket. What a ridiculous rule. I think it just means you can't "establish position" in the sense of being able to legally draw a charge.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,896
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 7, 2009 14:22:00 GMT -5
Gotcha. That's better. Still kind of ridiculous to enforce, but better.
|
|
njcoach
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 356
|
Post by njcoach on May 7, 2009 15:29:37 GMT -5
I think the opposing coach should be able to designate which student-athlete on the floor should be allowed to establish position in the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard. This student-athlete should be called the Secondary Defender and should wear a special armband. This can be enforced through the use of technology: tamper resistant ankle bracelets for non-designated student-athletes which sends a signal to a docking station at the scorer's table when there is intrusion of the prohibited area. It's really the way the game was meant to be played.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 7, 2009 15:46:09 GMT -5
It sounds like the intent of the rule is to limit the sliding over of an off-ball defender and "drawing a charge" in the area "essentially" under the basket. Personally, I never liked the charge when position was established after the player with the ball had left his feet. I'm not sure if it was ever worded that way, but all through the 70's, you would hear announcers make the statement that you "have to let him come down" or you have to allow him to land. I don't know if/when that rule was ever officially in the book and if so, when it was altered. But in any case, I've never really liked drawing the charge by jumping in front of someone who has already jumped. It seems to me that the laws of physics would suggest that the offensive player has, in that situation established position, as once his feet leave the ground, there is very little deviation in where he is going to land. Lastly, what exactly does "defining the area under the basket" mean? If they are "defining" it, wouldn't that suggest that it be marked as such? And if so, what's the difference between the "arc" and the marked, defined area under the basket? I don't think we have answered questions, but just changed what the questions are. Is that not the rule now? you have to estalbish position before the person takes off now for it to be a charge. If a ref is calling it otherwise he's callign it wrong. at least as my understanding. Heck if you've picked up the ball and are taking your two steps you can't be called correctly for a charge unless the person was already in position before you took your first step.
|
|
Hoya50
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by Hoya50 on May 7, 2009 15:51:43 GMT -5
once again, the ncaa makes a half a***d effort at fixing a problem. the clear solution is to designate a restricted area for taking charges with a border. make the game easier for refs to call and players to play. having an amorphous area on the floor will lead to interpretation and variations on how the rule is called which decreases the quality of the game.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 7, 2009 16:43:42 GMT -5
You know, I'm kind of reminded of two oddities of wording with regard to officiating:
1. The Balk rule: the pitcher can't do an assortment of specific things ... or any other unspecified actions to intentionally deceive the runner ... Um, isn't deceiving the runner the whole point to begin with? I mean, don't you want him diving back to first when you are throwing to the plate? Don't you want him breaking to second when you step off?
2. The official review wording in the NFL: you can't challenge that call because it's a judgment call. I'm sorry, but much of what they look at is a matter of judgment. I understand that they strive to have that judgment grounded in objective rules, but still, it's silly to act like that's the case.
|
|