Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Nov 20, 2015 9:31:58 GMT -5
Still scratching my head on the prohibition against coaches calling a timeout during a live ball. "Prevent incorrect granting of timeouts when there is no player possession" - has this been a huge problem? "And reduce game stoppages" - the game is going to be stopped when the players call a timeout instead of the coach. Instead, it just adds an element of unpredictability when the players can't hear the coach screaming to call a timeout.
Stupid change that is addressing a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Nov 20, 2015 11:31:12 GMT -5
Less timeouts.
ELIMINATE REPLAY (in every sport, but college basketball would be a great start).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 20, 2015 11:40:17 GMT -5
Still scratching my head on the prohibition against coaches calling a timeout during a live ball. "Prevent incorrect granting of timeouts when there is no player possession" - has this been a huge problem? "And reduce game stoppages" - the game is going to be stopped when the players call a timeout instead of the coach. Instead, it just adds an element of unpredictability when the players can't hear the coach screaming to call a timeout. Stupid change that is addressing a non-issue. Well, I think at the margins it may well result in fewer timeouts. There was one time during the game when Coach wanted a timeout, didn't get one, and play proceeded up to the other end where we had the ball on offense, and he reconsidered and didn't take one. That may happen a decent amount. Now, all that does is reduce actual minutes of a telecast by a minute or two, so I get that it doesn't make a huge difference. I think the other issue is that they don't want the referees taking their eyes off the court so much. As someone who refereed a bit, you're taught to actually make visual contact with the coach to ensure that the person yelling timeout isn't actually a player on the bench (or, worse, a fan behind the bench). Once you do that, you may well miss something that happens on the court in the short interim. Again, not a huge problem, but I can see where someone may think it makes some difference. All that said, I wouldn't have made the change either.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 20, 2015 13:08:20 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, I think you're right. I have a friend who has started officiating high school and middle school games. Those are obviously significantly less intense, and he said it can be difficult to hear coaches calling timeout. I think that was one of the major rationales.
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it, and while not a huge difference, I think this combined with one fewer timeout per team does speed it up a little.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Nov 20, 2015 15:50:12 GMT -5
Still scratching my head on the prohibition against coaches calling a timeout during a live ball. "Prevent incorrect granting of timeouts when there is no player possession" - has this been a huge problem? "And reduce game stoppages" - the game is going to be stopped when the players call a timeout instead of the coach. Instead, it just adds an element of unpredictability when the players can't hear the coach screaming to call a timeout. Stupid change that is addressing a non-issue. Well, I think at the margins it may well result in fewer timeouts. There was one time during the game when Coach wanted a timeout, didn't get one, and play proceeded up to the other end where we had the ball on offense, and he reconsidered and didn't take one. That may happen a decent amount. Now, all that does is reduce actual minutes of a telecast by a minute or two, so I get that it doesn't make a huge difference. I think the other issue is that they don't want the referees taking their eyes off the court so much. As someone who refereed a bit, you're taught to actually make visual contact with the coach to ensure that the person yelling timeout isn't actually a player on the bench (or, worse, a fan behind the bench). Once you do that, you may well miss something that happens on the court in the short interim. Again, not a huge problem, but I can see where someone may think it makes some difference. All that said, I wouldn't have made the change either. Not a fan of the rule but those are fair points. Really looking forward to the outcry around here when JTIII leaves a few more timeouts on the table at the end of a game!
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
Member is Online
|
Post by gujake on Nov 20, 2015 20:04:08 GMT -5
I'm really liking the shorter shot clock. Pomeroy has a running comparison to last year on his home page. So far, scoring and offensive efficiency are both up. Season to date comparison (ppg, efficiency, poss/game): 2014-15(67.4, 98.9, 67.6) 2015-16(73.6, 102.1, 71.6) And some analysis: kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/early_hot_take_on_new_rules
|
|