PDA

View Full Version : NBA Commissioner for the day



tseramid
08-29-2004, 10:37 PM
My brother and I had an interesting discussion today about what rules could be brought over from the International Basketball Game to make the NBA a more interesting game. I think many who watched came away with the feeling that the Olympic style of basketball is more fun to watch than the NBA and there are several rules differences.

I personally would love to see the rule where you could play the ball in the cylinder after it touches the rim. I was surprised that this was not used more often on the defensive side. This would put emphasis on the defensive side, but it could be fun.

My brother wants to see an elimination of the defensive 3 second rule, calling of the offensive 3 second rule and a trapazoidal lane so that you can play zone and post players have to take a step or two further from the rim. He doesn't like that the game stops on every possession while your biggest player posts up and everyone waits for him to get the ball.

What rule change would your like to see put into the NBA book to make things more interesting?

Hicks
08-29-2004, 11:46 PM
I'd like to see T's count as PFs. Make people think twice about doing something stupid, and help the other team out more when the other side blows a fuse.

SoupIsGood
08-29-2004, 11:51 PM
I'd like to see more strict on traveling. and for the refs to not allow players to be so physical under the basket. The sport's name is basketball, not football.

Cactus Jax
08-29-2004, 11:54 PM
The international rules for the most part...oh how can I say this... SUCK! I like the elimination of goaltending after the ball touches the rim, but everything else is better in the NBA, except the tighter calling on traveling.

I HATE zone defense and wish the defense was the way it was in the NBA a few years ago with the illegal defense; it wasn't that hard to understand.

DisplacedKnick
08-30-2004, 12:02 AM
A couple you didn't mention:

Get rid of that stupid circle under the basket. If you have to go through someone who has position to get somewhere on the court it's a foul wherever it happens.

Allow a pure zone.

Don't allow offensive players to bull their way to the basket. The acceptance of the shouldering/bodying a man down under the basket is ridiculous. I don't mind some contact but if the defender's set the offensive player shouldn't be allowed to knock him back.

Hicks
08-30-2004, 12:04 AM
A couple you didn't mention:

Get rid of that stupid circle under the basket. If you have to go through someone who has position to get somewhere on the court it's a foul wherever it happens.

Allow a pure zone.

Don't allow offensive players to bull their way to the basket. The acceptance of the shouldering/bodying a man down under the basket is ridiculous. I don't mind some contact but if the defender's set the offensive player shouldn't be allowed to knock him back.


^^Agreed

tseramid
08-30-2004, 12:09 AM
I don't mind getting rid of the circle, but I don't like some of the offensive fouls that were called. It just leads to flops, flops and more flops.

Hicks
08-30-2004, 12:11 AM
Well, to counter flopping, any time the ref feels the player flops, he can assign a warning, then after that it's a technical foul on the player.

tseramid
08-30-2004, 12:26 AM
Well, to counter flopping, any time the ref feels the player flops, he can assign a warning, then after that it's a technical foul on the player.

...which of course counts as a personal foul. ;)

Stryder
08-30-2004, 12:28 AM
A couple you didn't mention:

Get rid of that stupid circle under the basket. If you have to go through someone who has position to get somewhere on the court it's a foul wherever it happens.

Allow a pure zone.

Don't allow offensive players to bull their way to the basket. The acceptance of the shouldering/bodying a man down under the basket is ridiculous. I don't mind some contact but if the defender's set the offensive player shouldn't be allowed to knock him back.


Excellent suggestions.

I agree 100%.

Stryder
08-30-2004, 12:29 AM
The international rules for the most part...oh how can I say this... SUCK! I like the elimination of goaltending after the ball touches the rim, but everything else is better in the NBA, except the tighter calling on traveling.

I HATE zone defense and wish the defense was the way it was in the NBA a few years ago with the illegal defense; it wasn't that hard to understand.



Why are zone defenses bad? Expound.

It takes a "team" to play a zone, not just individual defending of the opponent.

Jose Slaughter
08-30-2004, 01:33 AM
I agree 100% witrh the strict calling on travelling.

I also think that flopping should be a foul.

Hoop
08-30-2004, 01:40 AM
Trapazoidal Lane is the one thing I'd like to see most of all.

Cactus Jax
08-30-2004, 01:49 AM
The international rules for the most part...oh how can I say this... SUCK! I like the elimination of goaltending after the ball touches the rim, but everything else is better in the NBA, except the tighter calling on traveling.

I HATE zone defense and wish the defense was the way it was in the NBA a few years ago with the illegal defense; it wasn't that hard to understand.



Why are zone defenses bad? Expound.

It takes a "team" to play a zone, not just individual defending of the opponent.


I like much more of a wide open game. The zone allows teams to be able to contain guys like Tim
Duncan, much easier. The game's not a three point contest which is what 90% of the european teams do. Argentina is a rare exception as they pass the ball so well, and they act very much like an NBA team.

Kegboy
08-30-2004, 01:57 AM
Well, to counter flopping, any time the ref feels the player flops, he can assign a warning, then after that it's a technical foul on the player.

Reggie might as well retire, then.

Vlade, too.

Arcadian
08-30-2004, 02:13 AM
I don't want flopping to be a foul just because I don't want refs to have to have to make any more judgement calls than they have to make. Besides not calling it would give the advantage to the offensive player without stopping and slowing down the game.

I guess I am one of the few who like the NBA game better.

Roaming Gnome
08-30-2004, 06:47 AM
Umm....FIBA blows, IMHO!

About the only thing that I would take from the int'l game is the trapazoid lane. Traveling is already a rule on the books that is very black and white. It is the Officials that make the gray area. Almost like baseball and the call of the strike zone, every ump has his strike zone but the rule clearly state the area. Traveling is just something the league has to make a "serious" point of contention! I really didn't care for all the traveling calls that were initiated from FIBA's refs looking at head/body movement instead of the feet, but I do reallize the NBA needs to do something about the excess of traveling, so it can filter back down to H.S. and college play.

As for the shorter 3 point line...didn't we do that already and concluded it was a bad idea in the mid to late 90's.

Technical Fouls as personals, I really don't care for because I don't think techs are that much of an issue in the game that the penalty needs more teeth.

40 mins is not a good idea!!! people pay good money to see over 2 hours of bball. That is why the game is 48 mins. This decision was made when the NBA started for the value to the fans. 48 mins also is the reason for 6 fouls. If the game was 40 mins.,5 fouls would then be logical.

Int'l goltending rules...that is something quirky FIBA can keep, Not interested!!!

Sorry, I like the circle under the basket. It takes more judgement out of the officials hands. If the official blows the call, it is more human error that he didn't see if someone was in the circle instead of his judgement. Since we are on judgement, the thought of calling flopping as a rule. Nah! I like how it is called now. Why stop the game for an unnecessary whistle. The flopper is already penalized by giving the offensive player a free avenue past him.

The NBA just needs to tighten a few of the rules we already have, not add new ones because the old ones are not getting enforced!

MSA2CF
08-30-2004, 07:24 AM
Maybe it's because it's so early in the morning and my brain does not yet work right, but I wouldn't bring anything over from there. I would eliminate the 3-point line...maybe. ;)

indygeezer
08-30-2004, 07:55 AM
I like the 3 pt shot...just not in high school. Same for the dunk shot.

Enforce the rules as written. And establish mandatory summer clinics for the zebras. The players are all about improving during the off-season shouldn't the refs? There are enough out-of-work bball players that could be hired to play for the reffing clinics. That way the powers that be could actually coach the refs in how they want the games officiated. Also, more former players (ala Haywood Workman) should be encouraged to take up the whistle as a post-career alternative. If for no other reason than to get some guys tall enough to throw up a decent jump ball.

The way I see to improve the game is to go back to the very beginning (Little league, High School, and even college) enforcing the basics. QUIT TRYING TO MAKE THE HIGH SCHOOLERS LOOK LIKE THE PROS! Then once the good basics are learned by everyone, the better play will filter up as the players make their way up thru college and into the pros. And you've already seen my ideas on how to make that happen. It will take years to improve play, but there are no overnight cures. Some of the proposals will help the immediate game, but real improvement in play will take time.

ChicagoJ
08-30-2004, 11:19 AM
ABSOLUTELY NO GOALTENDING!

If you want goaltending, go and watch hockey or soccer. Besides, the officials rarely, if ever, blow a goaltending/ not goaltending call, so let's leave that one alone.

I'm not saying I like the idea of 12" high rims, but that's a better solution than to allow more interference.

As has been said above, just enforce the rules as written.

Traveling. Handchecks. Offensive fouls. Don't reward floppers. No superstar treatment.

The players would adjust. The NBA just doesn't have the balls to "back up" the officials, because for the first month or two the games would take four-plus hours to play, and the players would "know" that eventually the league/ refs would cave in to the players' and casual fans' complaints.

Its easier to just leave it alone, partially broken. :(

Bball
09-01-2004, 12:24 PM
As for the shorter 3 point line...didn't we do that already and concluded it was a bad idea in the mid to late 90's.



The NBA did try a shorter 3 point line and many thought people like Reggie would have a field day. It didn't work out that way.

I don't remember what problems existed... whether being closer made it easier to defend or tempted more players to take the shot even tho they weren't good shooters...
Maybe someone with a better memory than me can refresh our memories on the problems with the closer 3 point line.

-Bball

tseramid
09-01-2004, 12:33 PM
If i recall correctly, the shorter 3-point line was intended to increase scoring, but all it did was conjest the inside because the guards were closer to double low, making it more difficult to score inside and lower scoring game overall.

It is interesting that David Stern said in an interview that widening the width of the floor would be the only rule change that could bring the flow of the game back to the way it used to be because of the change in athleticism and strength in the players throughout the years. Of course, this rule is impractical because it would take out the first row of seats at every arena costing tons of potential seat money.

My problem with the shorter 3-point line was that it nearly turned guys like George McCloud, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott into all-stars, meanwhile the shooting greatness of Reggie Miller was no longer unique.