No more time out calls while player is falling out of bounds

[tmh8286]

Since I seemed to have missed some other significant discussions earlier this season, I hope that I'm not bringing up another that has been previously discussed.

While surfing around I found several sites that mentioned the desire of the NCAA (at all levels) to prevent players from calling timeout while airborne or falling out of bounds.  I did a little checking and found this rule change:

"Use of Timeouts. (Rule 5-10.1.a). A timeout request shall not be recognized when an airborne player'smomentum is carrying him/her either out-of bounds or into the backcourt. Rationale: Often the player has already committed a violation before the timeout is granted. This play has occurred much too frequently in the game today."

There seems to be pretty nearly universal displeasure with a time out call in this situation, so hopefully we'll all be happy with the change.

A complete listing of the 2006-2007 rules changes can be found here.

[Titanic Eagle]

I'd heard that awhile back, but I don't know if it's been discussed here.

I think it's a good change, although I would have been happy with just a ban on announcers gushing about how brilliant it was for a player to do that.  Unless it's at the end of a game, the player would be better off heaving the ball toward his own basket, with about a 50/50 chance that his team will get it, rather than burning a time out.

[rlh]

Personally, I think this is a great change.  For everytime this was a great play, there were at least 5 or 6 times that this was created by a mistake and the player got bailed out.  This is one announcer who has repeatedly mentioned that I didn't like the out of bounds timeout and I am happy to see it go....

[tmh8286]

I couldn't agree more, rlh.  And I've heard you complain about it before.

I thought the explanation for this rule change was weak, though.  Most of the explanations for the rule changes made good sense.  But for this one they said, " Often the player has already committed a violation before the timeout is granted."  Well, if that's the case, then why allow the time out at all? 

In spite of it's weak defense, I'm glad for the rule change.

[rlh]

Now if we can get something done about the change of possession call, when the held ball is caused by good defense, we'll have something....

[tmh8286]

Here, here.  Another good call.

With that situation you do have the modest benefit of change in direction of the possession arrow, but I agree with you, the benefit doesn't match the effort.

Last year they changed the penalty resulting from a kicked ball from a total re-set of the shot clock to 35 seconds, to either no adjustment if the clock was above 15 seconds, or to 15 seconds if it was below that mark, because they didn't feel that the violation equaled the level of the penalty. 

Maybe they will someday adjust the the tied ball due to defense to better reward the defender.  The difficulty with that is that it would be a purely subjective call.  In a sense, aren't all tie-ups due to good defense?  I can see where this one would be a little more difficult to change.

[Otis 83]

Here's an idea. What if there were a jump ball between the two players involved in the tied ball?  Take away the potential penalty of the possession arrow and don't introduce an arbitrary rulling from the official.  Simply let the two players settle it.  Does anyone know if any other leagues do it this way?

[tmh8286]

Isn't that how they originally handled a tie-up?  Have a jump ball at the nearest circle (mid-court or at one of the "Keys")?  I don't know if this is better in rlh's opinion or not, but it doesn't really "reward" the defender for making a good defensive play, as he mentioned.  Maybe he'll weigh in on this alternative.

[Stl VU Fan]

Here's an idea. What if there were a jump ball between the two players involved in the tied ball?  Take away the potential penalty of the possession arrow and don't introduce an arbitrary rulling from the official.  Simply let the two players settle it.  Does anyone know if any other leagues do it this way?

He, he.  See this is one of those posts where no smiley is needed, the intent jumps out just from the words itself.  Of course, that is how everybody at every level did it when I was in school.

My impression is they changed it because they got tired of the refs throwing up so many unfair jump balls.  Ironically, now that they don't do it hardly at all anymore, the opening jump is often like this (like Valpo-Iowa last year).  In other words, the ball has to go straight up, not on an angle favoring either player, but it is not a simple matter (apparently) to get this right on a consistent basis.

[tmh8286]

Sarcasm of the original post duly noted.   

[Otis 83]

Sarcasm of the original post duly noted.

Intentionally left out the smiley face for my own personal amusement.  Thanks for playing the game TMH, Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you.

Props to you, Stl VU.  Regarding your point about how "hard" it is for officials to throw a proper jump ball, while listening to Red Auerbach do commentary on an NBA broadcast he claimed there wasn't an official in the league who could throw a ball straight up in the air.  Keep in mind that NBA officials get a lot more opportunities to work on their technique than college officials.

[tmh8286]

In my own defense - I never watch NBA, so I had no clue they hadn't made the switch to the possession arrow like the NCAA.  Still feeling a little red-faced though . . .

[rlh]

I think letting the refs make an arbitrary ruling on the defensive tie-up is the only way to go....unfortunately, refs have trouble throwing the ball fairly in jump balls (I was one and it's isn't easy)...and the alternating possession is unfair.  The question is whether or not to allow the refs to have a decision to make.  Maybe two of the three have to agree or something....otherwise I think we're left with what we have....at least taking away the timeout for jumping out of  bounds was the right move.....Now let's widen the lane and move the 3 point line back to the international distance.....

[tmh8286]

Now let's widen the lane and move the 3 point line back to the international distance.....

Like the NBA lane or like the International lane?  From a symmetry standpoint I like it as it is, both the three point line and the lane width.  However, I realize from a practical standpoint the wider lane opens it up a bit more under the basket, and moving the three point line provides greater challenge to sharpshooters, and perhaps would reduce the reliance on three point shooting a little bit.

That reminds me of a post that Ken Pomeroy had on his blog some time back regarding the ever-increasing reliance on the three point shot.  Here is the data in two forms:

3 point attempts as a percentage of all shot attempts

1987...15.7

1988...17.8

1989...19.9

1990...21.5

1991...22.8

1992...24.0

1993...25.4

1994...27.2

1995...28.8

1996...29.2

1997...29.8

1998...30.2

1999...30.5

2000...30.8

2001...31.2

2002...32.0

2003...32.1

2004...32.8

He goes on to say: "Every year of its existence, the 3 point shot has become a bigger part of college basketball than the previous year. So to an extent I can understand why coaches would want to move the line back. But to say that the shot has become too easy is not supported by the facts. And if you're going to nudge the line back, give the offense a little help somewhere else. Don't further penalize them by widening the lane. Sure, the NBA-style block-charge arc is being experimented with this year, but it will have almost no impact on overall scoring." (May 2, 2005)

Posts on this subject can be found here and here.