How Do We Feel About These Proposed NBA Rule Changes?

https://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/how-do-we-feel-about-these-proposed-nba-rule-changes?_branch_match_id=513748417547689558



How Do We Feel About These Proposed NBA Rule Changes?


Greenie
8/23/2018 10:50 AM




My initial take? I don’t hate it. We see these type of recommendations all the time, and frankly all three of these make sense to me on some level. This is nothing major or anything that will drastically change how the game is played, so it would be weird to me if someone were against this. Let’s look at all three one at a time


14 Second Shot Clock


I am all for whatever makes the game faster, so moving this from 24 seconds to 14 seconds on offensive rebounds seems like a no brainer. This is already how things are done in FIBA play, so it makes sense to have the NBA adjust as well. I’m sure of all the rule changes this may be one that has some detractors, but honestly who gives a shit if a team has 10 fewer seconds. They normally just take it and dribble around anyway before initiating their offense with around 14 seconds so I don’t think we’ll see that much of a difference. Instead this will give us more possessions, which everyone should be in favor of.

I’m especially excited to see this at the end of close games, where a team will no longer be able to get an offensive rebound and then just dribble out the clock. It’ll theoretically give us more thrilling endings and puts the pressure on guys to have improved mental composure in hectic scenarios. Love this rule change.


Simplification of clear path fouls

Maybe this is a personal preference, but I would love if the NBA really hit hard with this type of play. There is nothing more annoying then when a team is about to get on a fast break, and even if there is one person back, the offensive player is fouled at half court, stopping the play. Technically it’s not a clear path foul, but it’s still bullshit. They should instill some sort of penalty for that. Maybe just a tech and the ball or something along those lines. If you’ve watched any game done by Jeff Van Gundy, this may be his #1 gripe in the game today. He thinks they should get two free throws and the ball if this were to happen. In Europe/FIBA this is how it’s done, and this would be another adjustment I would have no problem with. I just find it weak as hell whenever a team does this, if you don’t want the fastbreak, don’t turn it over.

Now as to what that simplification really is, we’ll just have to see, but I am on Van Gundy’s side with this one.


Expanding what a “hostile act” is

Pretty hilarious that one of these rules would potentially help speed up the game, while this one may call for more replay, thus slowing things down. Even with an expanded definition, this is still going to be fairly subjective in my opinion. I’ll be interested to see what this new definition entails, because there’s no way they’ll be able to tell if something that was considered a gray area play now as definitely hostile. I feel like the league already does a good job with those questionable plays at the head and things of that nature, so what more could this be? If someone sets a hard screen or something? That would be kind of lame. I’ll reserve judgement on this one until we get the full details, but I would be pretty bullshit if there was a 50/50 play in a big playoff game or something and this new rule allowed them to go to replay over something minor, and the result ends up being worse than it should be. Who knows if that would actually happen, but it is something players are going to have to consider moving forward.

I’m all for making the NBA a better product on the court, and these small changes could very well do that. Really I only care about the first two because I think those will have the biggest impact, but it made me think. If you could propose a new rule change that isn’t listed here, what would it be?



bob
MY NOTE:  A 14 second shot clock is nuts.  Avery Bradley doing full court pressure could eat up the other team's shot clock single-handedly.  The game would be one-on-one chuck'em up or pure helter-skelter. Expanding the definition of a "hostile act" is just the further wussification of the NBA.  Only clarification of a clear path foul makes any sense to me.


.

14 second shot clock is only after a team collects an offensive rebound so the ball is already in the front court.  Personally I think it’s a bit too quick.  Watched a few WNBA games as they have used this the past 2 seasons and it seem a bit helter skelter after the O rebound.  

Obviously I see no need to reset to the full 24 but 14 is a bit to quick IMHO.

Looking at it another way ....... if you don’t want a team to run clock after they shoot...... get the damn rebound.

The other changes ?   We’ll just have to see how they are called but agree one seems that it will call for delays while the play is reviewed.
Reviews take to damn long as it is and now there may be more.

beat

14 second shot clock - Does it really matter ? Isn't the game fast enough now ?

Top 2 high scoring seasons of the past.
1961-62 - 118.8 pts per game of which 27.0 were scored from free thows - net from made field goals=91.8 pts.
1960-61 - 118.1 pts per game of which 27.4 were scored from free throws - net from made field goals=90.7pts.
Note--- The made free throws were all made with the clock stopped.
Therefore the points made per 48 minute game are based on made field goals.

2017-18 - 106.3 pts per game of which 16.6 were scored from free throws - net from made field goals=89.7pts
1985-86 - 110.2 pts per game of which 22.9 were scored from free throws - net from made field goals=87.3pts

Not much difference between the present and the so called run and gun days of the early 60's

swish

pretty much what Bob says in his notes.

i've played in many a game with a no blood/no foul rule, wouldn't mind seeing THAT rule adopted.

what ..nothing about the offensive players who jump into defenders as they shoot to get a foul called?

yes Harden I'm talking about you among others!

I hate that crap and wish they would call an offensive foul on those plays to end that crap.

and I'm with Matty on the flagrant fouls......no blood = no flagrant foul is fine with me.

The NBA has far too many very, very high priced players and too much money on the line with TV money and ticket sales to ever be able to play with the "no harm, no foul" concept. The league has to protect its players to continue to grow and profit.

Here's a huge change that I would like to.see.
  Eliminate the autmatic fouling out of a game for a non violent foul. Starting with the 6th foul simply add on a foul shot and possession of the ball with the players coach also having the choice of replacing or leaving the player in the game.

swish

I do not like the 14 second rule, offense would suffer with that rule. Nothing like watching a good play develop.
That rule of offensive players jumping into defensive players and getting the call should be addressed. It is a play that these smart offensive players use all the time, just like the leg thrown out as they shoot. If they can address that it will let teams that are defensive minded get a fair shake. How frustrated have we been with guys pulling this and getting our defensive players in foul trouble for no reason.

swish wrote:Here's a huge change that I would like to.see.
  Eliminate the autmatic fouling out of a game for a non violent foul. Starting with the 6th foul simply add on a foul shot and possession of the ball with the players coach also having the choice of replacing or leaving the player in the game.

swish

That would be an interesting rule, and it would be a delight to watch coaches try and figure out what is the best move. Will never happen, but I like the idea.

Shamrock1000 wrote:

swish wrote:Here's a huge change that I would like to.see.
  Eliminate the autmatic fouling out of a game for a non violent foul. Starting with the 6th foul simply add on a foul shot and possession of the ball with the players coach also having the choice of replacing or leaving the player in the game.

swish

That would be an interesting rule, and it would be a delight to watch coaches try and figure out what is the best move. Will never happen, but I like the idea.

Shamrock1000

It would probably help to keep the stars in the game and that alone is a big plus for me. I even hate to see the greats riding the bench because of early foul trouble.

swish

Fouling (or not fouling) is a big part of the game. Can you imagine the carnage the Bad Boy Pistons would have inflicted knowing none of them could foul out? What about players like Boogie acting like an idiot and picking up three quick fouls?

With the NBA becoming even less forgiving on contact and fouls - no way in hell they allow more than 6 fouls.

mrkleen09 wrote:Fouling (or not fouling) is a big part of the game.   Can you imagine the carnage the Bad Boy Pistons would have inflicted knowing none of them could foul out?  What about players like Boogie acting like an idiot and picking up three quick fouls?  

With the NBA becoming even less forgiving on contact and fouls - no way in hell they allow more than 6 fouls.

And just how would this carnage in crease their chances to win the game.

swish

swish wrote:

And just how would this carnage in crease their chances to win the game.

  swish

How would allowing a team full of hooligans to beat up the best players on the opposition beyond the allotted 6 fouls change the game? Is this a real question?

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:

And just how would this carnage in crease their chances to win the game.

  swish

How would allowing a team full of hooligans to beat up the best players on the opposition beyond the allotted 6 fouls change the game?  Is this a real question?

It sure is - note that I specified non violent fouls - and I assume that "beat up" would mean violent fouls.

swish

The NBA will never allow more than 6 fouls.  All their recent rule changes have slanted towards making the game less physical - not more.  This idea is 100% a non starter.

mrkleen09 wrote:The NBA will never allow more than 6 fouls.  All their recent rule changes have slanted towards making the game less physical - not more.  This idea is 100% a non starter.

Why would it be more physical ?

swish

These questions are ludacious.

Why would I tend to be more physical with you if I knew I had 7 or 8 or 10 fouls and could still remain in the game?

When I think of hooligans I think of the late 80’s Pistons, they cheapshotted and took down players regularly, fighting with everybody, but back then the game was all about the paint. Teams that controlled the paint offensively, defensively, rebounding always won, but the game has changed away from the paint. It’s all spacing, shooting, perimeter shooting and pick and roll, nobody posts up anymore, ofcourse you still need defense, but even now you need talented versatile perimeter defenders now more than ever. The game will never be as physical as those mid to late 80’s were.

mrkleen09 wrote:These questions are ludacious.

Why would I tend to be more physical with you if I knew I had 7 or 8 or 10 fouls and could still remain in the game?

I think that you would not be concerned about winning the game if you would deliberately commit flagrant fouls knowing that your opponet would get an extra foul shot and his team would retain possession of the ball - and if it was a flagrant 2 foul - your ejected from the game.

swish

Don’t like the 14 second clock at all. There comes a time when all should just leave the game alone. Stop creating/changing games to make it more appealing for TV. I get the $ factor but it gets to a point when the powers that be start believing their own bullshit.
I’m sure they’ve conduct/conducted strategic research on the game but I’ve never heard anyone complain about the 24 second clock being an issue they way its currently employed.
I’m a 100% believer in research. It becomes an issue when the data results are applied incorrectly. I believe this is one time that the implication is Faulty at best.

swish wrote:
I think that you would not be concerned about winning the game if you would deliberately commit flagrant fouls knowing that your opponet would get an extra foul shot and his team would retain possession of the ball - and if it was a flagrant 2 foul -  your ejected from the game.

  swish

Who said anything about flagrant fouls? Six common, hard, legal fouls already take their toll on any player. If I knew I had 8, or 9 or 10 - the guy would be worn out.
And if that was happening regularly to a star - the league would simply not stand for it. Just like your Kwahi to Boston thing - not going to happen.

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:
I think that you would not be concerned about winning the game if you would deliberately commit flagrant fouls knowing that your opponet would get an extra foul shot and his team would retain possession of the ball - and if it was a flagrant 2 foul -  your ejected from the game.

  swish

Who said anything about flagrant fouls?  Six common, hard, legal fouls already take their toll on any player.  If I knew I had 8, or 9 or 10 - the guy would be worn out.
And if that was happening regularly to a star - the league would simply not stand for it.  Just like your Kwahi to Boston thing - not going to happen.

I took "beat up" as being more than hard fouls - in any event the days of physical basketball as played by the Pistons (and others) back in the late 80's and early 90's is history, as many new rules (including flagrant fouls) first enacted in the early and mid 90's and continuing up to the present, have completely changed the game. Looks like we have a different view on this subject.  That's what this forum is all about.

 swish