Rule Changes for 2015-2016

[Panther100]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

30 second shot clock:
"Running schools" like Iowa think this will help them - but it won't.
I think this will help us. We defend the half-court hard - until we can't. Two things make us break down: forced rotations and fatigue. It takes time to force a rotation favorable to the offense. Five less seconds to defend will be huge. Muscle fatigue after 15-30 seconds of sustained exertion is a huge factor.
It seems like so many times I've seen us defend for 32 seconds, and then at the last second, someone gets open, or drive in for a bucket.

The other unintended consequence of the 30-sec shot clock is that the 3-point shot will gain influence on the game. The more players who can shoot from behind the arc, the better.

So overall I think the 30-sec shot clock is to our advantage.

The 4-foot block-charge arc:
This one will make it tougher to get a charge, so might hurt us.

Agreed, more pressing/zone defenses will happen. It will take longer to establish offensive flow. Hence, more three point shots/turnovers/lower scores.

[Khan4Cats]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

30 second shot clock:
"Running schools" like Iowa think this will help them - but it won't.
I think this will help us. We defend the half-court hard - until we can't. Two things make us break down: forced rotations and fatigue. It takes time to force a rotation favorable to the offense. Five less seconds to defend will be huge. Muscle fatigue after 15-30 seconds of sustained exertion is a huge factor.
It seems like so many times I've seen us defend for 32 seconds, and then at the last second, someone gets open, or drive in for a bucket.

The other unintended consequence of the 30-sec shot clock is that the 3-point shot will gain influence on the game. The more players who can shoot from behind the arc, the better.

So overall I think the 30-sec shot clock is to our advantage.

The 4-foot block-charge arc:
This one will make it tougher to get a charge, so might hurt us.

I heard Tony Bennett talking about the new clock (head coach at Virginia who plays a very similar defense to us, for those that don't know). He said he's thrilled with the shortening of the clock. Said he thinks he'll get 5 or 6 more bad shots per game than he did before and thinks points per possession will go down substantially this year. i.e. running up and down the floor to take a bad shot quicker.

Also, when the clock was reduced from :45 to :35 scoring went down almost 6 PPG. I think we'll see another 2 or 3 PPG this year. And you'll still have idiots screaming that we need a 24 second clock.

I agree with these. REBOUNDING will be the key for us. Keep teams from getting second chances.

[sivert]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

The way they are calling contact, this game could be made into something stupid. Wes ought to be able to draw a foul on every play. Just get the defender in motion and drive into him.

[UNIChippewa]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

Didn't get a chance to see the game today due to laptop issues, not that I would have enjoyed it anyway. Did the new rules noticeably hamper our defense, or more specifically cause a lack of traditional Ben Jacobson coached defense, or was Colorado State that good offensively?

I can't remember the last time we scored 78 points and still lost. Disappointing way to start the season, to say the least (although the season is certainly not a total lose, either).

[BCPanther]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

We did a great job forcing CSU to take jump shots, they just made them. With the new rules, we'll be fine. Just have to realize they're going to call contact on the perimeter and keep hands off. The only call I couldn't figure out was the guy driving right through Wes's chest and Was getting called. Other than that, I thought the game was called very well.

That was a Final Four level crew today, my concern is when we get a lower level crew.

Defensive rotation was a half step slow in the first half, but I thought it was fine in the second.

Sometimes the other team just plays a hair better. That's what happened today. The sky isn't falling.

[UNIChippewa]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

We did a great job forcing CSU to take jump shots, they just made them. With the new rules, we'll be fine. Just have to realize they're going to call contact on the perimeter and keep hands off. The only call I couldn't figure out was the guy driving right through Wes's chest and Was getting called. Other than that, I thought the game was called very well.

That was a Final Four level crew today, my concern is when we get a lower level crew.

Defensive rotation was a half step slow in the first half, but I thought it was fine in the second.

Sometimes the other team just plays a hair better. That's what happened today. The sky isn't falling.

Thanks for the feedback BC, much appreciated.

I don't think the sky is falling either, but with how tough the non-conference schedule is we need to win the games at home against the teams we can realistically beat. SFA won't be a walk in the park. That game, if it wasn't already, just became a must-win.

[hoopfan]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

We did a great job forcing CSU to take jump shots, they just made them. With the new rules, we'll be fine. Just have to realize they're going to call contact on the perimeter and keep hands off. The only call I couldn't figure out was the guy driving right through Wes's chest and Was getting called. Other than that, I thought the game was called very well.

That was a Final Four level crew today, my concern is when we get a lower level crew.

Defensive rotation was a half step slow in the first half, but I thought it was fine in the second.

Sometimes the other team just plays a hair better. That's what happened today. The sky isn't falling.

They shot 9-30 from 3. That isn't exactly lights out shooting. There were a lot of layups given up in this game. The 3's they did hit in the 2nd half were all timely and that made their shooting performance seem much better than it really was. The rule changes I thought were good, but I can't say the defensive effort was anything better than below average.

[pantherUNIverse]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

Thanks for the feedback BC, much appreciated.

I don't think the sky is falling either, but with how tough the non-conference schedule is we need to win the games at home against the teams we can realistically beat. SFA won't be a walk in the park. That game, if it wasn't already, just became a must-win.

Oh no, not a "must win" reference ALREADY

[UNIdad]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

Didn't get a chance to see the game today due to laptop issues, not that I would have enjoyed it anyway. Did the new rules noticeably hamper our defense, or more specifically cause a lack of traditional Ben Jacobson coached defense, or was Colorado State that good offensively?

I can't remember the last time we scored 78 points and still lost. Disappointing way to start the season, to say the least (although the season is certainly not a total lose, either).

I wouldn't say the new defense rules worked for or against us anymore than Colorado State. However, having seen a few games already this season, I would say that they are taking physical defense out of the game. I like giving guards room out by the arc, but not big guys underneath. Wes should have a huge season. Guys like Iowa State's Niang could average 30 points (if he doesn't foul out himself). I don't see them them staying with the strict calls on defenders underneath for more than another week or so. Rather than open up the game, it just keeps stopping play for fouls.

[sivert]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

Very interesting article by Jay Bilas
"Before these "new" rules (I contend they are not new, but just now better spelled out) were passed, some opined that these rules would benefit the teams with the best talent, the already-loaded Power 5 teams, and we would have fewer upsets and fewer Cinderellas. It would make the rich richer and would make it more difficult to beat the big dogs. Well, I differed with that thought and said so. In fact, I felt it would be the opposite. I believe that, with freedom of movement, Cinderella would have a betteropportunity to pull off an upset. I believed that we have always had upsets and we always will, but allowing freedom of movement to smaller, skilled players would allow for more chances to beat the big shots, not fewer."

[sivert]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

“faking being fouled by an opponent” as a Class A technical foul. Such acts include, but are not limited to, flopping or sudden movement of the head...

How have the refs been told to implement this? It would be tough to see this clearly in the flow of the game. If there is no or minimal contact, and the defender flops, what did the ref see? Maybe he calls a foul. Maybe he sees enough to call a flop.

Case 1:
In real time, the ref thinks there was a foul, and calls it. The replay on TV shows it to be a flop. Commentators, fans, and coaches will cry out for the new rule to be implemented. "Go to the video! That was a flop!!"

Case 2:
In real time, the ref thinks it was a flop. He can't just call it - he is required to review it.

Case 3:
In real time, the ref is unsure. He must review it, I guess.

I think there is a danger of the refs spending the whole game watching the TV's, which would get boring.

Also,
Flopping has always been illegal. This just makes the punishment worse. I'm not sure that's the way to solve it.
It seems to me that flopping is NEVER called. They either call the offensive player, or they let it go. With the punishment worse, will it be called more? Seems like an odd choice.

-=-=-=-
I think they would have been better off dropping the in-game foul for flopping, but reviewing games for flops afterwords. If you get assessed with a flop after a game you might lose eligibility in the game or first half of next game.

To my knowledge this isn't being called - anyone know of a case of TV-review leading to a Technical for flopping?

[sivert]

Re: Rule Changes for 2015-2016

The way they are calling contact, this game could be made into something stupid. Wes ought to be able to draw a foul on every play. Just get the defender in motion and drive into him.

Look at the foul Morris created by driving into Wes new the end of the game - I think it's the one at 1:56 in the second half. Wes is back-tracking, trying to give him room, but it's a foul on Wes.
As quick as Wes is, I would think he could do this to a selected opposing player at will. Think of the ISU game with 3 fouls on Niang in the first half and the fourth early, and fifth with 10 min to go.