| Welcome to TheVolunteerOnline. The Volunteer Online is a place where UT fans cross paths to discuss sports and life's other matters. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Fill out the registration as instructed. Go to your email, where a message will be sent to you. Click on that link to activate your membership and posting options. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Effect Of The New Officiating Rules | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 13 2013, 08:51 AM (302 Views) | |
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Nov 13 2013, 08:51 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
The people at the NCAA, the college presidents, the college Ads, and the college coaches complained loudly at how physical and ugly college basketball had become. As a result, the NCAA Rules Committee got together and came out with some changes that were not really changes. They were merely emphasizing the original rules of the game, how the game was played 20 years ago before officials started letting the game get away from them. These rules include: 1) Blocking and Charging Calls In short, defenders are now required to establish position before their man leaves his feet and begins his shooting motion in order to draw a charge. Gone, in theory, are the days of guys sliding in and setting their feet while a player is already on his way up to the hoop. Attempting a move like that will now result in a blocking foul. 2) * Keeping hand or forearm on an opponent. * Putting two hands on an opponent * Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm or placing a hand or forearm on the opponent. * Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler. This rule change will greatly limit the degree to which a defender can use his hands and arms to defend his man. Essentially, defenders can no longer keep either hand pressed against their opponents while defending, nor can they repeatedly "jab" at a player who is dribbling the ball (otherwise known as the go-to strategy for people who are awful at basketball video games). Using an "arm-bar" to inhibit an opponent's movement will now also be treated as a no-no. 3) Video Review Here, the NCAA's panel has adopted a policy that will allow referees to go the monitor for several reasons during gameplay. Officials can now look for/at: * Possible shot clock violations (last two minutes of regulation or overtime) * Which player last touches the ball when it goes out of bounds (same timing as the shot clock review) * Which player commits a foul when the offender is not immediately obvious (entire game) * Whether or not long-range field goals are good for two or three points (entire game, automatic during last four minutes) * The NCAA has created a situation that allows for some leeway on the part of the officials, as hotly contested or unclear plays during crunch time can now be reviewed for accuracy. These changes will almost certainly lengthen games, as they allow for increased stoppages during a time period (the last few minutes of the half) that is already rife with timeouts, fouls, and turnovers. 4) Elbowing fouls Previously, the rules regarding players' elbows contacting opponents above the shoulders were pretty rigid. Flagrant 1 fouls were being called in situations that did not merit them due to the rule's inflexibility. Under the new rules, officials may examine video evidence to determine whether a Flagrant 1, Flagrant 2, or no foul (incidental contact) is the correct call. This rule's intent is to hold players accountable for their physicality without games being turned on "letter of the law" moments, where the officials know that no foul has been committed but are forced by the rulebook to call a flagrant foul regardless. Adjusting to these new rules are going to require an adjustment from the players, and the coaches. The coaches are going to have to plan their defensive schemes completely differently now. I can foresee teams playing more match up zones as a result. Straight up man to man defense is not going to be able to stop guys who can make plays off of the dribble or big men who can post up strong inside and has very good offensive moves. These rules are going to clean up the game, make it flow better, create more offensive opportunities, and put an emphasis on basketball skills, not see who can get away with holding another player the best. The game had gotten ugly and way out of hand in my opinion as well. |
![]() |
|
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Nov 13 2013, 10:32 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
After watching the game last night, I believe that Maymon and Stokes have to change their game and move without the ball more often and when they do get the ball, they can not dip their shoulders and drive to the hoop, as they tend to do. McRae may average 25 points or more a game with the new rules. Nobody can stop him with the ball in his hand. Barton user looked good. He will take pressure off of McRae with his jumper. |
![]() |
|
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Nov 23 2013, 09:07 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
The players have to remember, that to succeed under the rules, they have to move their feet and not rely on using their hands, arms, or body to slow a player down that they are guarding. Real basketball skills are being made a premium. Edited by TennesseeTuxedo, Nov 23 2013, 09:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Nov 23 2013, 12:34 PM Post #4 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
I hate it right now....as it's keeping the game from getting any kind of rhythm.....making everything very choppy and hard to watch. I agree however....the longterm effect will be that guys will really have to play defense. Heart and feet.....that's what defense really should be....... |
![]() |
|
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Dec 10 2013, 09:02 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
I have been a proponent of strict man to man defense my entire life. I grew up attending Bob Knight's basketball camp and loved playing hard nosed defense. I know that Martin is from the same school of thought. I watching the top teams play so far, the most effective defense employed is the zone. I believe that with our length, a match up 2-3 zone would be devestating. |
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Dec 11 2013, 07:50 AM Post #6 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
I think that it's important to switch defenses from time to time during a game. It keeps the opponent from getting into a rhythm. A zone certainly has it's place if it's played well. Even if man is your bread and butter (which I would strongly endorse). My favorite was always a 1-3-1 because you could stretch it all the way up the court...or pack it in...and there were lots of trap opportunities. A recent example that comes to mind. Tennessee and Texas women's game on Sunday. The game was pretty close and Texas was getting people open with some screens. Holly switched to a two three and started really pushing the ball on offense. It completely changed the entire flow of the game and Texas was completely caught off guard long enough for us to get e comfortable lead. |
![]() |
|
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Dec 11 2013, 08:33 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Did you watch Florida spring their 1-3-1 zone on Kansas and totally throw them off their game in the first half? |
![]() |
|
| Sapientvol | Dec 11 2013, 09:15 AM Post #8 |
|
Apprentice
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I hate zone defenses. They slow the game down and makes the show less exciting. That said, I'm not sure we've got the necessary length under the basket to play effective zone defense. At least not a 2-3 type defense. The problem with the 1-3-1 is it's very vulnerable to back door plays (particularly the alley opp pass/shot) and three point shots from the corners. And the defender under the basket has to be superman, as he's gonna run himself to death. I didn't watch Florida/Kansas, but I can tell you from watching Kansas in earlier games this year, that they are extremely young and not very effective running a set offense. Switching defenses and playing less popular defenses will really mess with them. They just don't know how to attack different zones, but they can take you off the dribble, if you play man against them. Billy Donovan just exploited their inexperience. |
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Dec 11 2013, 12:47 PM Post #9 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
I watched the first half....they were KILLING them. I got bored with it, and moved on.....but that's a great example..... |
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Dec 11 2013, 12:52 PM Post #10 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
If you teach a 1-3-1 correctly....the offside wing is responsible for back door stuff. Corner shots are a problem only if you pack the zone in....if not, the corners are where the good traps are. The baseline guy shouldn't have to run any more than of the other four perimeter guys....as all four have one side of the "box" to guard from side to side. Where I use to really struggle with a 1-3-1 wasn't any of those....it was when the other team had two good post players.....we couldn't cover them both inside...and would switch to a 2 - 1 - 2....if we stayed zone...... |
![]() |
|
| *TennesseeTuxedo | Dec 11 2013, 08:15 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
If you go zone, I like having an odd(1-3-1) and an even front look (2-3), so the other team has to take the time ti figure out what you are doing. I do like Syracuse, 2-3 match up. Similar to what Don Chaney ran at Temple. |
![]() |
|
| Sapientvol | Dec 12 2013, 12:29 PM Post #12 |
|
Apprentice
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
JV, how do you cover the baseline in the 1-3-1 without one player running the baseline? I've never seen it done otherwise and I've been that guy under the basket and it will absolutely run you to death. The corner three is effective against the 1-3-1. But you've got to catch and shoot before the zone can rotate into a trap. And the second trapper with the wing on that side, is that guard running himself to death on the baseline. So shooting threes from the corner will make him run even harder. The back door weakness is due to the tendency of defenders to follow the ball with their eyes, and not necessarily watching who might be cutting into their zone of responsibility. If the 1-3-1 zone over-rotates to one side to trap the corner, as you propose, that back wing will have responsibility not just for his side of the court, but a good portion of the paint as well. It's just too much real estate for one player to guard, especially right near the goal. You've got to have really fast players in excellent condition to effectively run a 1-3-1. It's a heck of a defense when run properly with the right players. I don't know if you've heard of Coach Buck Van Huss at Dobyns-Bennett in Kingsport. He retired in the early 80s as the winningest high school coach in America. And he loved the 1-3-1 defense, he ran it as his primary defense. They just tore other teams up. When I was in high school, Van Husse had the Tennessee state champion 100 meters sprinter running that baseline defense. And he could jump out of the gym, he was a 6 footer that routinely out jumped other much taller players for the opening tip. He was perfect for that defense, he could outrun everybody, had great stamina, and could rebound under the goal. Van Huss also used a 1-3-1 full court press. I watched games where the other team never got the ball past half court in the first quarter against that press. Watching his teams is where I learned about the 1-3-1. When run right, it's a great defense. |
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Dec 12 2013, 02:54 PM Post #13 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
You essentially build a box with the four perimeter players. I would typically use a forward for the "four" baseline spot, with your center in the middle. He didn't have to be fast....just tough, as it's not a pleasant place to be (directly under the basket) when it's time to rebound. 1, 2 , 3, & 4 have essentially the same distance to cover...... one and four go side to side while 2 & 3 go front to back. All four have to be willing to travel that same distance to create the traps you are going for. The two and the three are trained to fall back when the ball is on the opposite side to protect against back door cuts and dump offs to the weak side. If I could draw you some pictures you'd see what I'm talking about. If taught correctly, it was very good against teams that didn't pass or move particularly well...often very athletic teams that relied on talent instead of effort. I ran it for years as part of my normal three defenses; man, 1-3-1 & 2-1-2. I liked to switch that and a 2 -1 -2 as you simply rotated the box ninety degrees with the center staying put. It put somebody exactly where they weren't, which would really mess up an offense that was use to seeing the other. A couple of other things: Any zone can be shot over if it's packed in...sometimes you want that if the other team is big and doesn't shoot well. Compared to playing a heads up extended man, you probably run less in a 1 - 3 - 1....no matter where you're playing. Edited by JollyVolly, Dec 12 2013, 06:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sapientvol | Dec 13 2013, 05:04 AM Post #14 |
|
Apprentice
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The question I have about your defense, is who is guarding the man with the ball in the corner? Either the 4 on the baseline or the wings must guard that shooter in the corner. Or he is gonna light you up. Or both guard him if you trap the corner. Some coaches use the wing against the man in the corner, with the 4 holding half way to the corner to protect against cutters to the block. If you use the wing to defend the corner, then you will have to shift the zone further to the ball side of the court to prevent gaps in the defense. Which leaves the other weak side wing guarding the entire weak side of the court from the block under the goal, by himself. Quick pass reversals will move faster than the zone can rotate back, attacking that lone weak side defender with a shot from the wing,, a drive to the paint or a back door play. If you try to not over rotate the zone to the corner, by using the baseline 4 to close out the shooter in the corner, then that guy is running far, far more than anyone else on defense. He's running the entire baseline, from sideline to sideline, all the time the other team has the ball and reverses it to attack the defense. Most defensive coaches believe the worst outcome is to over-rotate the zone, to over extend it to one side or another. Especially against a team that's coached to attack the zone by moving the ball through passing. So they will run that 4 along the baseline to close out the corner, until his tongue drags the court. If you are going to over rotate the zone, then you must trap in the corner. Otherwise you are taking a huge defensive risk for little chance of return. So you must run your 4 from sideline to sideline to trap in the corner. Again, running him until his tongue drags the floor. I suspect you were coaching against teams that didn't really have a clue how to attack a 1-3-1, or weren't very well coached. Edited by Sapientvol, Dec 13 2013, 05:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| *JollyVolly | Dec 13 2013, 08:52 AM Post #15 |
|
A Very Manly Man
![]()
|
You can suspect whatever you want. I'll make sure I alert all those other coaches, that you suspect their teams and coaching methods weren't up to par. Perhaps they'll check in here for some instruction from you..... The corners were trap areas. The four perimeter men moved to the four trap areas and double teamed the ball..... if we were playing an expanded zone. Sometimes we'd pack it in and encourage them to shoot outside....it just depends on what was going on. The zone would shift slightly with the ball...but not much. It's very hard to do anything but pass the ball around a 1 - 3 - 1, with the center standing in the middle of the zone and the off wing playing "free safety", but as I previously stated, it worked best against teams that relied more on individual skills as opposed to one that moved the ball around well. It's possible to sit at a keyboard and dream up cockeyed ways to defeat any defense....but in the end, we had to run one. I ran what seemed to be the most effective against the teams we played. Also....try to keep in mind that we switched defenses on the fly. By changing the defenses you could keep the other team off balance. In addition to what I've already described, we also ran a 1 -2 - 2 half court trap. We also ran a man full court press where we denied the in bounds pass (I learned this watching Pearl's early teams) and the doubled on the ball if they did get it in. By golly.....we ran a box and one....we ran a triangle and two....and every once in a while we'd all sit down at the foul line and pick our noses..... Edited by JollyVolly, Dec 13 2013, 08:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Thompson-Boling Arena · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
1:55 PM Jul 11