Proposed NBA rule changes

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I don't see any positives from changing the shot clock to 14 after an offensive rebound. The game doesn't need to be faster. NBA games have a good pace already. No reason to make a change just for the sake of change. Teams who get an offensive rebound earned another full possession.

Don't the majority of plays off of an offensive rebound result in a quick possession anyway? Putback layups/dunks, kick out jumpers, etc?

It's a no for me. Seems rather pointless.

It's how the rest of the world plays basketball and it's a better rule. Teams don't need 24 seconds after an offensive rebound to get another shot. The only reason they would use it is to milk clock, and milking clock isnt fun to watch.

 

[Park Bites]

Yes, they are idiots for giving the customers what they want.

The rebounding resetting the shot clock completely never really made sense. Personal fouls dont reset the shot-clock to 24, they reset it to 14. No team needs a complete 24 seconds in a 2nd/3rd/etc consecutive half-court possession.

This new rule wont drastically change the pace of the game. I don't know where to look the data up, but I would guess the majority of possessions following an offensive rebound are used in the first 14 seconds. The biggest change will be the end of games when teams are milking clock. An offensive rebound will no longer be as big of a back-breaker to teams trying to make a comeback. In my opinion that is a good thing and a positive change to the game.

I am Xthren and I approve of this message

 

[Park Bites]

Also our clock operator is like the worst in the league... at least 2-3 times per game they screw up and stop the game. We need less complexity for this person... or a new clock operator.

I would like to apply for this position please

 

[Park Bites]

I don't see any positives from changing the shot clock to 14 after an offensive rebound. The game doesn't need to be faster. NBA games have a good pace already. No reason to make a change just for the sake of change. Teams who get an offensive rebound earned another full possession.

Don't the majority of plays off of an offensive rebound result in a quick possession anyway? Putback layups/dunks, kick out jumpers, etc?

It's a no for me. Seems rather pointless.

Part of the 24 second is also for bring the ball up the court. that doesn't need to happen when you are already in the half court

 

[SCS]

It's how the rest of the world plays basketball and it's a better rule. Teams don't need 24 seconds after an offensive rebound to get another shot. The only reason they would use it is to milk clock, and milking clock isnt fun to watch.

If the majority of offensive rebounds result in a quick possession already then what's the point of a rule change to mandate a faster possession? I've never watched an NBA game where I was like, this possession after an offensive rebound took too long and it's ruining my viewing experience. What's next, switching from two free throws that count for one point each to one free throw that counts for two points after a foul? Just to speed up the game a little?

I'm just saying that it seems pointless. The pace of an NBA game is fine imo. It's not like the MLB of the past where pitchers took all day between pitches and rule changes were needed to speed things up.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If the majority of offensive rebounds result in a quick possession already then what's the point of a rule change to mandate a faster possession? I've never watched an NBA game where I was like, this possession after an offensive rebound took too long and it's ruining my viewing experience. What's next, switching from two free throws that count for one point each to one free throw that counts for two points after a foul? Just to speed up the game a little?

I'm just saying that it seems pointless. The pace of an NBA game is fine imo. It's not like the MLB of the past where pitchers took all day between pitches and rule changes were needed to speed things up.

Because the rest of the world plays that way and it makes more sense. You dont need 24 seconds in a half-court possession. 24 seconds is a good shot clock for a full-court possession, but off a rebound it's unnecessary.

It's not about making the game faster, but preventing the game from slowing down too much. It will also make it easier for teams to make comebacks at the end of games and prevent clock milking (you know, the whole reason any shot clock exist). I dont know why it's so hard for you to see the obvious benefits of such a rule change.

I think it makes intuitive sense that a rebound for a half-court possession (offensive rebound) would award you less shot clock than a rebound for a full-court possession (defensive rebound). Your team has to cover less ground and should be able to get into their offense quicker. The shorter clock just prevents the clock milking and makes the games more exciting/less bogged down in the closing minutes.

 

[Odgerton13]

I'm not for it. The rules shouldn't be changed to help a team get a come from behind victory. Changing the rules as such takes away from using strategy. Which milking the clock is.

Changing the shot clock too 14 seconds after an offensive rebound also benefits smaller line ups as the damage of missing a defensive rebound lessens.

NBA basketball is more popular now than it ever has been. Unless your changing rules to protect the health of the players I don't think it needs to be done.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yeah I don't like that either. They keep doing things to push the pace of the game, make things easier for offensive player, etc. Hell if they want a sprint and dunk game just make it illegal to guard anyone and give the team 8 seconds after they take possession to get to the hoop. Then it will be super fast and incredibly high-scoring, which is apparently what the NBA thinks their customers, namely we, want. Idiots.

make ist 16 seconds after a offensive rebound.


peopel think we want more offensive. but if all star game of recent years where all offensive and it sucked like the all star game. it started to suck because there was no defense. past seaosn nba all star seaosn there was a bit of pride invovled so defense ppicked up but was nowhere near like in 2001.


look at pride and defense. better than any of those record breaking high scoring games

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'm not for it. The rules shouldn't be changed to help a team get a come from behind victory. Changing the rules as such takes away from using strategy. Which milking the clock is.

Changing the shot clock too 14 seconds after an offensive rebound also benefits smaller line ups as the damage of missing a defensive rebound lessens.

NBA basketball is more popular now than it ever has been. Unless your changing rules to protect the health of the players I don't think it needs to be done.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using JazzFanz mobile app

No, the rules should definitely be geared towards making comebacks more likely (within reason and in the spirit of keeping the game fluid, which this rule is very much within as its a rule THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD PLAYS BASKETBALL BY)

And you can still milk some clock, you just cant do it as much. It extends the exciting part of a basketball game.

For instance, if a team is up 3 and there is 40 seconds left on the clock. They have the ball, they run the clock down to 28 seconds before attempting a shot and get an offensive rebound with 26 seconds remaining. Under the old rules there would be a new 24 second clock and the team would be forced to foul, resulting in a longer and more arduous end-game experience. Under the new rule you get more actual basketball and less timeout/foul trades.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I would like to apply for this position please

I'm willing to hire you now not knowing anything other than you arent the current clock worker.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

No, the rules should definitely be geared towards making comebacks more likely (within reason and in the spirit of keeping the game fluid, which this rule is very much within as its a rule THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD PLAYS BASKETBALL BY)

And you can still milk some clock, you just cant do it as much. It extends the exciting part of a basketball game.

For instance, if a team is up 3 and there is 40 seconds left on the clock. They have the ball, they run the clock down to 28 seconds before attempting a shot and get an offensive rebound with 26 seconds remaining. Under the old rules there would be a new 24 second clock and the team would be forced to foul, resulting in a longer and more arduous end-game experience. Under the new rule you get more actual basketball and less timeout/foul trades.

We try to eliminate all sorts of foul shots... no hack a shack, no fouls on the break, less intentional fouls at the end of a game...

How about this... no more ******** foul drawing behavior from stars like Harden and Love. Like you have to go up how a reasonable person would go up for a shot and not try and pump fake a guy in the air and throw your body into him.

 

[♪alt13]

We try to eliminate all sorts of foul shots... no hack a shack, no fouls on the break, less intentional fouls at the end of a game...

How about this... no more ******** foul drawing behavior from stars like Harden and Love. Like you have to go up how a reasonable person would go up for a shot and not try and pump fake a guy in the air and throw your body into him.

I don't like the Euro foul. I also don't like the clear path call. I would simplify it to any defensive foul within say the first 3 seconds of possession. I will give their rule change on this the benefit of the doubt but I think it is too complicated.