The NCAA has 13 new men’s basketball rules proposals. Let’s discuss.

Ace: Before we run down the more intriguing proposals, a number of these are unlikely to be recommended. They include:

• Widening the lane to 16 feet (currently 12 feet)
• Award possession to defense after a held-ball
• Eliminate 10-second backcourt rule
• Allow offensive team to decline free throws in final two minutes and overtime(s); opt for inbound instead
• Eliminate five-second closely guarded rule
• Allow instant replay on shot-clock violation in final two minutes/overtime on a missed shot
• Allow instant replay on basket interference/goaltending calls -- but only if/after an official calls the violation

Are any of these worth discussion?

Brian: I think they're all bad ideas that are rightfully headed for the trash bin of history, except... uh... they eliminated the closely-guarded rule four or so years ago?

BiSB: One of my pet rules is that the ball should go to the defense on a wedgie.

Brian: For one when a ten second call happens it rules. Ten second calls are always awesome, fact.

Ace: The closely guarded rule came up for elimination but stayed in the book. I can’t remember the last time I saw one called, though.

Brian: They don't even count it anymore?

BiSB: It's like the "you have 10 seconds to shoot a free throw" rule. The ref counts, but he counts like a parent threatening a 5-year-old.

Seth: It's definitely been in that realm calls that are made so infrequently the coach loses it when they do.

BiSB: "Four and a haaaaaaaaaaaaaaalf..."

Seth: This always bothered me as a kid: When you're counting down, if you add a half you're going in the wrong direction.

Anyway.

Brian: I have absolutely seen a player dribble with his back to the basket closely guarded for 10 seconds in late half situations.

Ace: NCAA refs, Brian.

Brian: I may be having a Mandela effect moment.

Ace: Regardless, I don’t feel strongly about it either way. As we’ve covered, they don’t enforce it, and there’s not enough slow post play to make me worried about its impact. The three-second rule in the paint is still there, too.

Brian: Closely guarded and three second calls should be dropped. Anyway, onto things that might actually happen...

Seth: Make the whole court out of lane?

Ace: Before we do, I just have to say that as someone who used to play a lot of pickup ball, I’d be on board with the “defense gets held balls” change even though it won’t happen.

[After THE JUMP: We find a way to embed The Shot]

-------------------------------

Laptops, tablets allowed on the bench for coaching purposes only

Ace: Starting off with a banger.

Brian: The Chris Hunter rule.

Seth: What a rule to have named after you.

-------------------------------

Tweak traveling interpretation to universally allow players to Euro step, use spin moves and step-backs.

Everyone complain about the travel on Hunter Dickinson’s legit Euro step in transition GO.

BiSB: I'm sure it will add clarity and clearly divide travels from non-travels.

Brian: This is a much different phrasing than the previous article from Norlander on these rule changes, which said you get two full steps after picking up your dribble. That seems like less of a tweak than a pretty big change.

Ace: This does seem like it’ll help clarify the rule in that refs will be inclined to let more gray area stuff go.

Brian:

Here are *possible* rule changes for MBB for next season, per NCAA rules survey. Six-foul rule—with conditions—is interesting! Sign me up.

Also: "Limit number of timeouts that may be called by any one team in the last two minutes of the second period or of any OT period or two." pic.twitter.com/iV4XCsvAS7

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) April 14, 2021

"Allow a player to take two steps after lifting his pivot foot."

Ace: That brings it much closer to the NBA rule, which is good.

Brian: I am not the travel expert man but it seems like those moves should be legal already and adding a second step is a big change.

Ace: Yeah, I’m all for allowing these moves. Nobody is here to watch refs call travels on cool plays.

Brian:

A eurostep lifts the pivot foot and then it doesn't come back down before the shot. I don't know that this tweak is actually needed.

Ace: I was in such a blind rage after this play that I feel it’s needed.

The NCAA is basically doing this:

Brian: Lol okay fair.

BiSB: It's confusingly worded, in that the euro-step is currently allowed (for anyone under 7' tall).

Seth: I wonder how many NBA scouts are watching that pass on Franz's highlight reel and realizing they called a travel after the fifth viewing.

-------------------------------

Ace: So those last two are the ones Norlander says are likely to be recommended. The next two are possibly headed for a two-year trial in the NIT, which is how we got the 30-second shot clock. The first:

Two-timeout limit per team with under two minutes in regulation and throughout overtime(s)

Brian: Any timeout restriction is a yes from me. We inch closer to the dream where to call timeout a coach has to shear off a digit and hand it to an official.

Ace: No further comment needed on that one, I think.

-------------------------------

Eliminate offensive basket interference and use FIBA rule instead: ball is always live after it makes contact with the rim.

I’m torn on this one because it fundamentally changes the game but the more I think about it the more I like it.

Brian: Tip dunks are cool but I feel like this is different rules for offense and defense.

Ace: Offensive rebounding died and this would help bring it back in a big way. Also: Michigan would be awesome at this.

Brian: I think the effect would be pretty small but that's a reason to support it because it doesn't change a whole lot but lets you go OHHHHHH a couple more times a game. This rule as stated is a little contradictory. Is the ball always live or only live for the offense? Probably the latter because no one wants to see shots that hit the rim get swatted after the fact.

BiSB:

Ace: The FIBA rule, via FIBA: “Once the ball strikes the rim, any player can play the ball (i.e. swat it away or tap it in).”

Brian: Whaaaat?

Ace: Michigan would be REALLY awesome at this. Can we ram this through committee before Moussa Diabate gets on campus?

Brian: I think that's a bridge too far.

Seth: I'm opposed. Tip slams are cool, swats are cool, but those moments when the rim has the ball and you're waiting on divine providence are INTENSE.

Brian: I don't watch enough FIBA stuff to know if post-rim swats are a thing people try to do a lot.

Ace: It’s not a game-changing occurrence.

BiSB: People can't just hover at the rim. There's at least some time for the ball to do its thing.

Ace: I vote yes for more cool plays. People will still be boxing out and fighting for rebounds, these won’t come free.

Brian: It is very much an NIT test drive thing, though. Let's see it in action before committing to it.

BiSB: OTOH, you would miss SOME cool plays.

Ace: Yeah, that’s fair. It’d be awesome to see that swatted out, too! Both are cool!

Seth: I'll admit playing the ball off the rim is more pure, since it rewards a shooter for more swish.

Ace: It’s worth a test run, for sure.

Brian: the sheer unfairness of the three that bounces high in the air and goes in is great though

Ace: Timing that up won’t be easy. I think the bigger effect would be on shots originating near the rim.

BiSB: The number of own goals will greatly increase, too... and those are fun.

Seth: I assume FIBA still makes you play outside the rim, IE you can't go up and under to play it, or grab the rim to hoist yourself, etc., which are part of the basket interference rule.

Ace: Yeah, you can’t do that.

-------------------------------

Alright, now the two rules that Norlander has in the “big debates await” section:

Introduce quasi quarters by resetting team fouls at 10-minute mark of each half. Begin double bonus on fifth foul within each 10-minute segment. This eliminates the one-and-one free throw

Brian: No, no, and no. The one-and-one is great. No Michigan fan can support this.

Ace: This is a weird half-measure to preserve halves and commercial breaks, too. So: nah.

Seth: I am against it because Michigan doesn't foul, and because Tom Izzo wants it so bad.

Ace: It’s also impossible to argue against The Shot. I cannot do it.

Brian: The one-and-one rewards not fouling a ton, increases late game drama, and provides an uncomfortable tingle when your team is subject to it. It is amazing and any attempt to undo it is monstrous.

Ace: Next!

-------------------------------

Modified six-foul rule: player is allowed three fouls per half (would be disqualified if they committed four fouls in a half). However, a player can commit two or three first-half fouls and have as many four or three more to use for the remainder of the game, allowing for six total.

WHY IS THIS SO COMPLICATED?

Brian: Right?

Ace: I’m also against any measure that enforces autobench on principle.

BiSB: In English: you foul out of the first half with four, and out of the second half with six.

Ace: Just give them six fouls.

Seth: Just keep them to five fouls.

The Mathlete: Get rid of individual fouls!

Ace: Let’s hear The Mathlete out here.

The Mathlete: How do individual foul counts make the game better? Good players go to the bench so worse players play more.

Brian: The drama of THIS GUY GOT TWO FOULS is a real dual-edged sword.

The Mathlete: Any offensive action designed to draw fouls on an individual defender is also bad basketball.

Brian: I am very torn about it.

The Mathlete: If the idea of what is a basketball foul was able to be applied at all consistently, the existing rules make sense, but right now it’s mostly unnecessary randomness.

Ace: It does encourage some extra skill on defense but fouls down low are so, uh, we’ll go with “tough to call” on the college level that I get the argument here.

Lol, for the readers, those two messages came in at the same time.

Brian: When the Big East went to six fouls everyone hated it, FWIW. It opens the door for Izzo teams to play football even more than they already do.

The Mathlete: If players don't have an individual limit, it allows the refs to call it more consistently.

Ace: Oh man, that graph is no good. Do not want.

Seth: I am with The Mathlete here if they significantly reduce total fouls allowed. Otherwise you're allowing the guards to soak up fouls and encouraging Big East Ball.

Brian: Fouling out is extremely punitive but I think it has to be to actually keep people trying to play within the rules. I might be in favor of not counting offensive fouls as personals?

The Mathlete: THAT'S WHAT THE FREE THROWS ARE FOR.

Ace: The math man has a point.

Brian: Okay but when FTs are the only way to dissuade we see that there is a massive parade to the line and that sucks to watch.

The Mathlete: Two free throws are 1.5 PPP.

Ace: Brian also has a point.

The Mathlete: So there is already a huge disincentive to foul a lot.

Seth: That disincentive hasn't stopped fouling as a strategy even with fouling out at five.

Brian: When Cs are going up near the basket I think that equation changes and hard foul limits are better at preventing intentional FTs given.

The Mathlete: Now I'll concede that point.

Ace: Given the block/charge roulette we live with, I’d be in favor of eliminating offensive fouls as personals. They already don’t give you bonus free throws because you’re already getting a turnover.

Brian: Yeah and moving screens are always so chintzy and unevenly called. I don't think there are major aesthetic problems if you don't count offensive fouls as personals.

Ace: Would we want to see the six-foul rule tried in the NIT? It’s a very different game now than in the early ’90s, after all.

The Mathlete: The six foul rule doesn't do anything for me. Make it 12 or get rid of it!

Seth: I think the correlation between allowing more fouls and more fouls committed is going to exist regardless, and I want fewer fouls.

Brian: I don't think I'd even want to see it tested. I think it's a dead letter.

BiSB: My suggestion is to eliminate fouling out, but make every foul after a certain point two shots and the ball.

Brian: For a player? Or team?

The Mathlete: now that's an idea if you want to keep player fouls in place. You don't foul out, but any foul above a threshold is 2 shots and the ball.

Seth: That eliminates The Shot.

Ace: That’s a huge penalty and adds more free throws.

BiSB: For a player. Hunter Dickinson picks up his 5th (or 6th), and he can stay on the floor... but if he commits a foul, it basically acts as a flagrant 1.

Ace: Eliminating offensive fouls as personals would really help the stuff they’re trying to take care of here. College stars are often big men and big men commit easily the most offensive fouls. We’ve all become obsessed about everyone’s backup center because of the possibility they end up playing 25 minutes. Testing that in the NIT would be great.

Seth: I would love to see data on offensive fouls for big men, particularly our own.

Ace: An offensive foul is still a turnover so there’s not an incentive to start bashing people in the post.

The Mathlete: So our proposal is to keep the limit at 5 personal fouls but get rid of the DQ, offensive fouls don't count against the total and any personal fouls after 5 are 2 shots and the ball?

Ace: Keep the limit at 5, keep DQs, eliminate offensive fouls as personals. Ditch the rest.

Seth: Right. We have a consensus on eliminating offensive fouls from the personal count. The rest no.

The Mathlete: Fine, it's just my proposal.

BiSB: Have we considered "no blood, no foul?"

Ace: Let’s wait until Brad Davison is gone.

Brian: By then we'll have rocket cars to the moon.