College Basketball Rule Change Proposals

I really like college basketball.  I went to college in Philadelphia in the 1960s when all of Philly’s Big Five – LaSalle, Penn, St. Joe’s, Temple and Villanova – played 99% of their home games at The Palestra.  That meant double headers every Tuesday, Friday and Saturday – – and sometimes another one on Wednesday.  In my four undergraduate years, I missed a total of 4 games at The Palestra.  I really like college basketball and have liked it for a long time.

I have also mentioned here before that I officiated basketball for 37 years – – albeit never at the collegiate or professional level.  I never kept a count on the number of games that I did, but my guess is somewhere in the vicinity of 2500 games.

The preceding paragraphs are there to frame what is to follow here – – commentary on a report that the college basketball rules mavens are about to embark on a discission about 13 different rule changes.  My reaction to these “proposals”/”thought experiments” varies widely; so, let me get to the list.

One proposed rule change would allow the use of laptop computers or tablets on the bench during games “for coaching purposes only”.

• I do not know why this is a necessary addition to the game; college basketball has survived for about 100 years without computers on the bench.  However, I do not see any huge downside here either – – so I will just say “ho-hum” to this change.

Another proposal would loosen the rule on traveling and specifically allow the so-called “Euro-step” and the step back for a jump shot.

• I hate this idea.  If the traveling rule needs modification, it needs to be modified into a tighter rule not an expanded one.

A third proposed rule change would award possession of the ball to the defense every time there is a held ball.  This would eliminate the possession arrow.

• I always like a rule change that favors the defense simply because almost all of them favor the offense.  I would like to see this one happen.

Someone wants to change the rules to eliminate the 10-second back-court rule.

• This is a rule that would favor the offense and penalize a pressing defense.  I do not like that – – but it does remove one responsibility from game officials to maintain a 10-second count.  I prefer to keep the 10-second back-court rule in place.

Similarly, another rule change proposal is to eliminate the 5-second closely guarded rule.

• This proposal favors the offense again ever so slightly.  Since the violation is called about once a month on a national basis, this is not a big deal but why do the offensive players need yet another rule change in their favor?

On the table is a suggested rule change that would widen the foul lane from 12 feet to 16 feet.

• This may look as if it favors the defenders except for two factors.  First, 3-second violations are called about as frequently  as 5-second closely guarded violations are called, so It really does not matter all that much.  Second, this will enforce more spreading of the court by offensive players and that is a defensive challenge not a benefit.  Widen the lane if you must – – and then make 3-second violations a point of emphasis to get folks out of the paint!

The camel’s nose is already inside the tent so this rule change would get the beast’s entire head in there too.  They want to consider allowing “instant” replay to apply to shot-clock violations on missed shot attempts in the final two minutes and/or overtime situations.

• Oh swell, yet another way for “instant” replay to gobble up time in the waning moments of a game.  We need this as much as Olympic swimming events need lifeguards.

But wait; there’s more…  The camel’s intrusion into the tent could get its entire neck in there with another proposed change.  This other one would allow “instant” replay on basket interference and/or goaltending calls – but only after an official calls the violation in the first place.

• This will consume a lot of time in college basketball games and – most importantly – the use of “instant’ replay here will NOT assure that the officials “get it right”.  Such a bad idea…

Here is a solid proposal.  This rule change would allow a team in the final two minutes to turn down free throws and take possession of the ball on a throw-in.

• This change would probably accomplish two things.  First it will speed up the ends of games because setting up for throw-ins takes less time than setting up and administering free throws.  Second, it should make even more obvious the intentional fouling that is going on to the point that MAYBE there will be a few intentional foul calls made where they are sorely needed.

Next up is a step in the right direction but one that does not go quite far enough.  The proposal is to limit teams to two timeouts in the final two minutes of regulation play and throughout all of overtime periods.

• Good idea – – but a better one would be to limit teams to one timeout in the final three minutes of regulation time and to give teams two timeouts in overtime but only one of them can be used in the final minute of overtime.

The last three proposed rule changes are all bad ones, in my opinion.  I shall try to save the worst for last, but that might be difficult since all three of these are stinkers as far as I am concerned.  The “least worst” of the three is one that would change the disqualification rule of five personal fouls by a player.  The proposal would allow a player to commit 3 fouls per half giving him a total of 6 fouls before disqualification except he would be disqualified if he committed 4 fouls in either half.

• Five fouls before disqualification are sufficient.  There is no reason to reward a player for playing defense poorly enough to commit 6 fouls in a game.

Here is another bad idea.  Break the games into “imaginary quarters” for the purpose of counting team fouls.  The proposal here would “reset” the team fouls to zero at the 10-minute mark of both halves and would have the double-bonus begin with the fifth team foul in any of the “imaginary quarters”.  The one-and-one foul situation would cease to exist.

• Great!  Another element where timing can become controversial so that we can expect to have another rule change in two years to use “instant replay” to find out if a foul call was just before or just after the 10-minute mark.  Also, what is wrong with one-and-one situations – – unless you are a player who just cannot shoot free throws?

This is the rule change proposal I like the least.  The proposal would eliminate offensive goaltending by defining the ball as alive after it has touched the rim on a shot attempt.

• Please note: this rule change proposal does NOT seek to allow a defender to swat a ball away after it touches the rim or is “in the cylinder”; the change only seeks to eliminate offensive goaltending.  Why is that a good idea?

To recap, there are 13 rule change proposals that will be considered by the rules mavens over this weekend at NCAA HQS.  For me, the breakdown goes like this:

• Four of the proposals are GOOD.
• Two of the proposals are UNNECESSARY.
• Two of the proposals are BAD.
• Five of the proposals are UGLY.

Finally, the folks proposing these rule changes can be viewed as missionaries trying to spread a good word to poor heathens wherever they may be.  Oscar Wilde had this to say about missionaries:

“Missionaries are going to reform the world whether it wants it or not.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………