new NCAA basketball rules

[iowast8fan]

1. Referees can now look at instant replay to determine flagrant fouls and ejections.

eh.


2. When a free throw shooter is injured, the opposing coach must now select one of the team's players from the four on court.

I like it, except it may encourage opposing teams to foul harder when the game is on the line.

3. Secondary defenders must establish position outside the area between the backboard and the front of the rim to draw a charge call.

Indifferent.

 

[HiltonMagic]

2. When a free throw shooter is injured, the opposing coach must now select one of the team's players from the four on court.

I like it.

I don't. It rewards the team committing the foul.

 

[4429 mcc]

1. Referees can now look at instant replay to determine flagrant fouls and ejections.

eh.


2. When a free throw shooter is injured, the opposing coach must now select one of the team's players from the four on court.

I like it, except it may encourage opposing teams to foul harder when the game is on the line.

3. Secondary defenders must establish position outside the area between the backboard and the front of the rim to draw a charge call.

Indifferent.

3. Great just what College basketball didnt need an imaginary charge circle...WTF. Cant wait 'til a close game gets screwed up b/c of this ******* rule.

 

[Chizit]

Bout time for number 2.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I don't. It rewards the team committing the foul.

But it also prevents a player that shoots 50% from the line from faking an injury just so the coach can put in the guy that shoots 98% from the line that wouldn't see playing time otherwise. And it's not as if there isn't likely going to be a decent FT shooter among the other four guys remaining on the court.

It's a rule I actually like.

I'd also like the rule that if a player can't shoot his own two free throws in the last two minutes of the game due to injury that player is ineligible to return to the game (referee's discretion - I'd hate for someone not to be able to return to the game because of something like a contact lens or blood issue).

 

[MidwestZest]

i agree with #2. Guy gets whacked, let's say a flagrant foul. He either has to shoot the free throw, or he can't come back into the game. That's correct, right? or is that just the nba? Whichever it is, dumb dumb dumb. Much rather have someone on the floor who (probably at worst) shoots 60% from the line than make a guy who just got poked in the eye shoot a ft. I like it.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I don't. It rewards the team committing the foul.

How so? It went from being completely unfair to the defense, to kind of unfair, given there is still a good chance they will have a better shooter at the line. The abuse/benefit was clearly was for the offense before. A poor free throw shooter gets fouled...fake an injury. It is not like the offense does not get to shoot free throws, or that the injury was intentional, so as to put a bad free throw shooter at the line.

 

[MidwestZest]

But it also prevents a player that shoots 50% from the line from faking an injury just so the coach can put in the guy that shoots 98% from the line that wouldn't see playing time otherwise. And it's not as if there isn't likely going to be a decent FT shooter among the other four guys remaining on the court.

It's a rule I actually like.

I'd also like the rule that if a player can't shoot his own two free throws in the last two minutes of the game due to injury that player is ineligible to return to the game (referee's discretion - I'd hate for someone not to be able to return to the game because of something like a contact lens or blood issue).

totally beat me to it. ALL of this ^^^^^^^^ :yes:

 

[price26]

Rule 2 is good, I'm not sure it should be the opposing coach's call though. I think leaving it at having to pick one of the four on the floor would have been good enough. As long as you can't bring in your ace free throw shooter off the bench.

 

[HiltonMagic]

But it also prevents a player that shoots 50% from the line from faking an injury just so the coach can put in the guy that shoots 98% from the line that wouldn't see playing time otherwise. And it's not as if there isn't likely going to be a decent FT shooter among the other four guys remaining on the court.

It's a rule I actually like.

But now you can foul hard and injure a good FT shooter and then tell them you want the 50% guy to take the shots...

And it's not as if there isn't likely going to be a decent FT shooter among the other four guys remaining on the court.

The opposing coach gets to choose though, so I'm sure they'll choose the worst shooter out there.

 

[HiltonMagic]

Rule 2 is good, I'm not sure it should be the opposing coach's call though. I think leaving it at having to pick one of the four on the floor would have been good enough. As long as you can't bring in your ace free throw shooter off the bench.

This

 

[Knownothing]

_

Duke is now screwed with the Charge rules.

 

[tim_redd]

I like all of them, but I think the own team's coach should choose the new FT shooter out of the 4 on the floor.

 

[DaddyMac]

Yeah - but if you're intentionally fouling a guy hard enough that he needs to be removed from the game - chances are you just flagrantly fouled him and they're getting two and the ball back. Not sure that's much of a reward.

(that's how a flagrant works in college, right?)

I'm rather indifferent, but leaning towards liking it. I think we've seen far more acting by bad free throw shooters than headhunting on good ones.

 

[Cydkar]

I don't. It rewards the team committing the foul.

However, it may eliminate players acting hurt because they can't shoot free throws. I agree with your point though.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

But now you can foul hard and injure a good FT shooter and then tell them you want the 50% guy to take the shots...

It is not that easy just to foul hard an injure a good FT shooter. I would say that happens only a few times a year intentionally, where as faking an injury to change shooters is much more common unethical practice. In fact I do not think I have ever seen a player intentionally injured for this purpose.

 

[MidwestZest]

Yeah - but if you're intentionally fouling a guy hard enough that he needs to be removed from the game - chances are you just flagrantly fouled him and they're getting two and the ball back.

what I was gonna say. If it's that hard, it'll be flagrant or a technical. Still, you WOULD be without that player if they were fouled hard enough to be hurt and out of the game. You'd imagine that something intentional like that would garner a suspension as well though..

 

[HiltonMagic]

However, it may eliminate players acting hurt because they can't shoot free throws. I agree with your point though.

I agree that it may eliminate one problem, I just don't like that the team committing the foul gets to pick. The bad FT shooters could still fake an injury if the other guys on the floor are better. So it doesn't completely solve it.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I agree that it may eliminate one problem, I just don't like that the team committing the foul gets to pick. The bad FT shooters could still fake an injury if the other guys on the floor are better. So it doesn't completely solve it.

But makes it better.

 

[jdoggivjc]

But now you can foul hard and injure a good FT shooter and then tell them you want the 50% guy to take the shots...




The opposing coach gets to choose though, so I'm sure they'll choose the worst shooter out there.

If you're fouling to injure...
1. It's going to be pretty hard to hide that fact from the officials.
2. If that's the case (it clearly appeared to be intent-to-injure), slap the fouler with either an intentional or flagrant foul. An intentional or flagrant foul that injures the player that has been fouled carries the weight of the coach being allowed to choose the player he wants to shoot the free throws.