NCAA Rule Changes for 2019-20 Season

[ORUTerry]

The NCAA approved Wednesday a proposal from its men's basketball rules committee to extend the 3-point line more than a foot deeper than its current positioning.

The rule will move the line back from 20 feet, 9 inches to 22-1¾, the same measurement used in international play. The 20-9 distance has been in place since 2008 in NCAA men's basketball.....

Other rules changes for this season include: 

• To reset the shot clock reset to 20 seconds after a field goal attempt hits the rim and the offensive team rebounds the ball in the front court. 
• The use of instant replay can be conducted if a basket interference or goaltending call has been made during the last two minutes of the second half or the last two minutes of any overtime
• The allowance for coaches to call live-ball timeouts in the last two minutes of the second half or of any overtime
• Players will be assessed a technical foul and ejection if they use derogatory language aimed at an opponent regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

 

Link:     https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-including-moving-back-3-point-line-to-international-distance/

 

[titansforever]

The extended 3-point line will be quite interesting!

[Dr. Cornelius]

Hopefully this will lead to players who shouldn't be shooting 3-pointers taking fewer attempts (wishful thinking probably) and less congestion for potential drives to the basket.

17 hours ago, ORUTerry said:

Players will be assessed a technical foul and ejection if they use derogatory language aimed at an opponent regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. 

Was this not already the case? Or is "taunting" a different classification?

[ORUalum]

I wish the NBA would move their line back.  Some have proposed moving it to 25" and complexly eliminating the corner 3. 

 

 

[Old Titan]

A LOT of significant rule changes, with the inevitable "unintended consequences" to worry about.

That goal tend/block shot rule is going to add even MORE "free timeouts" in the final two minutes.  They need to make it so the players on the floor have to retreat to the lanes on the opposite end from their benches during all these "final two minutes" reviews.  Otherwise, stay tuned for teams INTENTIONALLY goal-tending point-blank shots when they have no timeouts late, just to stop the clock to get review and the subsequent huddle with the coach.

Also, stay tuned for post-game press conferences where coach and/or player has to verify what was said that got him ejected, or deny saying what the ref thought he heard.  Of course, we'll never know what the ref heard (or thought he heard) because NCAA refs are not required/allowed/interested in publicly commenting after a game on their actions during it.

But, since this new rule may get a kid labeled as "bigoted" or "racist" or "homophobic" for the remainder of his basketball career (life??) based on one heat-of-the-moment utterance, maybe now those refs SHOULD be held accountable publicly for ejecting someone they deem has violated the rule?

[SpaceManSpiff]

1 hour ago, Old Titan said:

A LOT of significant rule changes, with the inevitable "unintended consequences" to worry about.

That goal tend/block shot rule is going to add even MORE "free timeouts" in the final two minutes.  They need to make it so the players on the floor have to retreat to the lanes on the opposite end from their benches during all these "final two minutes" reviews.  Otherwise, stay tuned for teams INTENTIONALLY goal-tending point-blank shots when they have no timeouts late, just to stop the clock to get review and the subsequent huddle with the coach.

Also, stay tuned for post-game press conferences where coach and/or player has to verify what was said that got him ejected, or deny saying what the ref thought he heard.  Of course, we'll never know what the ref heard (or thought he heard) because NCAA refs are not required/allowed/interested in publicly commenting after a game on their actions during it. 

But, since this new rule may get a kid labeled as "bigoted" or "racist" or "homophobic" for the remainder of his basketball career (life??) based on one heat-of-the-moment utterance, maybe now those refs SHOULD be held accountable publicly for ejecting someone they deem has violated the rule? 

Goal-tend intentionally for an automatic two points?

You would still foul to send the other team to the line... and have your point guard talk with the coach as the game grinds to a hault.

And for the 'ejections':

1) I haven't seen anything to indicate that there will be automatic ejections for anything said by the players. There is still 2 technical fouls required to be ejected.

2) I see this as codifying the reasons that a technical foul could be called. Before it was just that the player said something the refs did not like - with no guidelines at all.

[Old Titan]

28 minutes ago, SpaceManSpiff said:

"Reading is hard!"  (see below)

Goal-tend intentionally for an automatic two points?

You would still foul to send the other team to the line... and have your point guard talk with the coach as the game grinds to a hault.  Please note that I said "point-blank shots", like a put-back at the rim, or a teardrop lay-up, when they can't get to the shooter, and/or without incurring a foul (particularly an intentional foul).  Plus, getting all five players together at the bench for a minute or two while the refs crowd around the monitor is a far-sight better than the coach talking to one player on the court during a free throw.  When it happens (and it will), I will reply to this post with a video example.

And for the 'ejections':

1) I haven't seen anything to indicate that there will be automatic ejections for anything said by the players. There is still 2 technical fouls required to be ejected.  Look at ORUTerry's post, which is a direct quote from the NCAA press release:  "Technical foul and ejection".   And, I trust you will at least give ORUTerry the benefit of the doubt?? LOL

2) I see this as codifying the reasons that a technical foul could be called. Before it was just that the player said something the refs did not like - with no guidelines at all.  It's the difference between a player saying something objectionable TO the ref; as opposed to the ref hearing something objectionable BETWEEN PLAYERS.  Much more chance for the ref to misinterpret the words and/or the intent.  Too murky to warrant an ejection and stigmatize the "offender"!

 

[SpaceManSpiff]

1. Agree to disagree on your goaltending stance. Makes no sense to me.

 

2. There is no automatic ejection. Why would a technical foul be assessed if there was?

 

The rulebook itself has authority over a press release:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/rules/men/2019-21PRMBB_RulesChanges.pdf

 

Current Class A technical foul language - pretty vague:

Article 3 - item b:

The items listed in the new rule are protected classes (nothing on veteran status though). Which makes it easy for the NCAA to select, approve, and codify what is deemed derogatory and worthy of a technical foul. And it helps to supplement the language of the current vague rule.

While this is a new 'rule,' I believe (hope) language like this has warranted technical fouls in the past. I doubt this rule changes anything in real terms.