What do you think is wrong with the league? List some rule change ideas

[QUOTE=iamgine;14888218]Which rule don't make sense? I'm saying the refs need to use common sense discretion and call things accordingly. For example, KD's infamous "rip through" move was technically a defensive foul. But when he's doing it intentionally, that would go beyond the spirit of the rules and so the refs shouldn't call it. They should even call it offensive foul. Instead, they need to wait seasons for ratification when there's really no need for that. Same with Harden's stepback.[/QUOTE]
The majority of contact rules in basketball are stupid and up in the air. We all know the obvious things that refs can see and call like push offs where there's elbow extension but a lot of contact can't be seen. Things you can do legally as a 150lbs player vs a 250lbs player are fouls if the roles are reversed. If I'm backing down a bigger guy I can get way more physical. If I'm backing down a smaller guy I have to be way more careful to not get called for an offensive foul. If I'm defending a bigger guy I can get way more physical, etc. It's turned into a game that punishes strength and over time we've seen the shape of the NBA player change to correspond: Longer, lankier, and skinnier.

A lot of this stuff used to be up to a ref's discretion. Over time the NBA wanted to make things more objective so they had to put words on paper and it's only revealed how subjective the rules really are. Oh and Harden's step back is legal when done correctly but it's impossible to tell in real time so they just give him the benefit of the doubt. He probably travels on it more than half the time in reality.

[QUOTE=FKAri;14888224]The majority of contact rules in basketball are stupid and up in the air. We all know the obvious things that refs can see and call like push offs where there's elbow extension but a lot of contact can't be seen. Things you can do legally as a 150lbs player vs a 250lbs player are fouls if the roles are reversed. If I'm backing down a bigger guy I can get way more physical. If I'm backing down a smaller guy I have to be way more careful to not get called for an offensive foul. If I'm defending a bigger guy I can get way more physical, etc. It's turned into a game that punishes strength and over time we've seen the shape of the NBA player change to correspond: Longer, lankier, and skinnier.

A lot of this stuff used to be up to a ref's discretion. Over time the NBA wanted to make things more objective so they had to put words on paper and it's only revealed how subjective the rules really are. Oh and Harden's step back is legal when done correctly but it's impossible to tell in real time so they just give him the benefit of the doubt. He probably travels on it more than half the time in reality.[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm saying. Bring back ref's discretion. Harden's double step back can be 100% legal but they should still call it. KD's rip through can be 100% legal but they should still call it.

This is the same with any other sport. Ref/umpire discretion just solves a lot of things when they're not misused.

Go back to early 2000s defensive rules. If the players are more skilled as we always hear they should adapt, right? I'm partly being facetious but its obvious the pendulum has swung way too far to the offensive side.

As an aside, on average how many extra possessions were created by resetting the clock to 14 seconds off offensive rebounds a few seasons back?

[QUOTE=iamgine;14888230]That's what I'm saying. Bring back ref's discretion. [/QUOTE]
They have plenty already. The purpose is to have a standard so there's consistency. So you minimize discretion as much possible and try to make rules that everyone can agree on.

[QUOTE]Harden's double step back can be 100% legal but they should still call it.[/QUOTE]
Call non-travels as travels too? What does this even mean?

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888232]Go back to early 2000s defensive rules. If the players are more skilled as we always hear they should adapt, right? I'm partly being facetious but its obvious the pendulum has swung way too far to the offensive side. [/QUOTE]

Was it harder to score in the early 2000s than in the early 90s?

[QUOTE=FKAri;14888239]They have plenty already. The purpose is to have a standard so there's consistency. So you minimize discretion as much possible and try to make rules that everyone can agree on.


Call non-travels as travels too? What does this even mean?

[/QUOTE]
Nah they should collectively decide whether it's something that goes beyond the spirit of the rules. Should've taken 1 week to decide rip through move shouldn't be awarded fouls instead of years.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888232]Go back to early 2000s defensive rules. If the players are more skilled as we always hear they should adapt, right? I'm partly being facetious but its obvious the pendulum has swung way too far to the offensive side.

As an aside, on average how many extra possessions were created by resetting the clock to 14 seconds off offensive rebounds a few seasons back?[/QUOTE]

Removing three seconds in the key is a good first step, or at least lengthening it to five seconds. Defenses should have complete freedom regarding positioning. If ball pressure is restricted, they should at least be able to set up in any formation they want.

EuroLeague doesn't have three in the key and its top offense is like 119 points per 100 possessions. So, it wouldn't be catastrophic to offenses.

[QUOTE=FKAri;14888239]

Was it harder to score in the early 2000s than in the early 90s?[/QUOTE]

I think its generally accepted that the early 2000s was the most depressed defensive era, leading to the 2004 rules change( and the subsequent perimeter offensive explosion).

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14888262]Removing three seconds in the key is a good first step, or at least lengthening it to five seconds. Defenses should have complete freedom regarding positioning. If ball pressure is restricted, they should at least be able to set up in any formation they want.

EuroLeague doesn't have three in the key and its top offense is like 119 points per 100 possessions. So, it wouldn't be catastrophic to offenses.[/QUOTE]

What about bringing back handchecking?

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888232]Go back to early 2000s defensive rules. If the players are more skilled as we always hear they should adapt, right? I'm partly being facetious but its obvious the pendulum has swung way too far to the offensive side.

As an aside, on average how many extra possessions were created by resetting the clock to 14 seconds off offensive rebounds a few seasons back?[/QUOTE]

stupid to reset the clock back to 24 seconds when it's already in the front court. That's a good rule. A lot of teams don't even go after offensive boards anymore anyway. More worried about transition D

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14888293]stupid to reset the clock back to 24 seconds when it's already in the front court. That's a good rule. A lot of teams don't even go after offensive boards anymore anyway. More worried about transition D[/QUOTE]

Its served to increase possessions/ scoring but I dont see much other benefit. The league was more than fine with the 24 second reset for most of its existence. The offense doesnt need more help scoring the ball

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888291]What about bringing back handchecking?[/QUOTE]

That's ideal but I doubt the league would go for it. Removing defensive three seconds or extending it to five seconds seems like something they'd go for. It's a shame because the rule restricts defensive creativity regarding positioning, structure, and schemes.

I wonder if we could get an '08 Boston type of defense if they made the change. I guess Minnesota's not that far off right now. -7.4 rDRtg last time I checked. But in absolute terms, a ways off the 98.9 defensive rating of that team.

[quote]
Boston 2007-08: 98.9 defensive rating (-8.6 rDRtg)
Minnesota 2023-24: 108.3 defensive rating (-7.4 rDRtg)
[/quote]

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14888305]That's ideal but I doubt the league would go for it. Removing defensive three seconds or extending it to five seconds seems like something they'd go for. It's a shame because the rule restricts defensive creativity regarding positioning, structure, and schemes.

I wonder if we could get an '08 Boston type of defense if they made the change. I guess Minnesota's not that far off right now. -7.4 rDRtg last time I checked. But in absolute terms, a ways off the 98.9 defensive rating of that team.[/QUOTE]

best D in 28 years!

[QUOTE=iamgine;14888251]Nah they should collectively decide whether it's something that goes beyond the spirit of the rules. Should've taken 1 week to decide rip through move shouldn't be awarded fouls instead of years.[/QUOTE]
Come up with the language to describe what is and isn't a foul and we're good to go.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888290]I think its generally accepted that the early 2000s was the most depressed defensive era, leading to the 2004 rules change( and the subsequent perimeter offensive explosion).[/QUOTE]
The switch to allow zone made it harder on offenses than defenses. Yes but if my team subs out a player who can shoot for a player who can't and now I'm having trouble scoring does that mean the defense got better? No but it is a more challenging scoring environment. Zone meant shooting priority went up and rosters had just not adjusted yet.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14888291]What about bringing back handchecking?[/QUOTE]

When people say this they're usually thinking of 90s style handchecking and that isn't going to do much of anything in today's game. It affects very few of the current big time scorers like Brunson or Trae. But back in the 70s you had real handchecking. That would allow the modern bigger wing defenders to really harass 90% of the modern PG scorers in an iso.

[QUOTE=FKAri;14888326]
When people say this they're usually thinking of 90s style handchecking and that isn't going to do much of anything in today's game. It affects very few of the current big time scorers like Brunson or Trae. But back in the 70s you had real handchecking. That would allow the modern bigger wing defenders to really harass 90% of the modern PG scorers in an iso.[/QUOTE]

It would probably have to be in combination with tightening the reins on travelling/carrying rules but at that point, you're fundamentally changing the games of an entire generation who grew up carrying the ball and allowed an extra step or two( or three).

You don't want to change the game fundamentally IMO like removing the 3pt line or pushing it back.

The way to bring the game back to normal and slow down the offense is remove the defensive 3 second rule, allow at least some handchecking on the perimeter and start calling obvious travels.