ADVERTISEMENT

Tournament is like 90s nba rules.

I thought the big 12 teams were and got away with a lot of physical play last year and this year it’s the sec. If you called a foul everytime someone from the sec put two hands on the man with the ball their games would still be going on.
 
This thread reminds me of something I have noticed.

Player 1 with the ball runs into Player 2 - there is contact. Player 2 falls backwards to the floor.

No call.

Doesn't it almost HAVE to be a block, a charge or a flop?
 
Why are players allowed to "back down" an opponent? If you hit a guy hard enough to knock him backwards, why isn't that charging? A player is getting physically removed from his spot.

Making that a charge would clean up a lot of physical play.

I don’t disagree, but did you want that called when Garza was consistently using that tactic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mohawkeye
Yes I did. Garza had other options in his arsenal.

He did, but he used it often and would have been in foul trouble constantly. Now, that being said I am sure he would have adjusted just like those using it now would adjust if it was called a foul.
 
He did, but he used it often and would have been in foul trouble constantly. Now, that being said I am sure he would have adjusted just like those using it now would adjust if it was called a foul.
That's what I would like to see. Teams make adjustments to the rules, rather than play bullyball. " They can't call all the fouls" has taken over basketball. Basketball was meant to be quickness and finesse and not hockey on hardwood.
 
I don’t disagree, but did you want that called when Garza was consistently using that tactic.
Garza's strength was establishing his position early. Most of the contact was by the defender pushing back against his position. He'd have drawn a lot more fouls in your scenario if they were calling all the contact...
 
Garza's strength was establishing his position early. Most of the contact was by the defender pushing back against his position. He'd have drawn a lot more fouls in your scenario if they were calling all the contact...

Probably true, but he would also have been called for more fouls as well.
 
Probably true, but he would also have been called for more fouls.
A few, but I think he'd have fouled out a lot of guys until they adjusted to the calls. And frankly, given his arsenal of offensive moves, I don't see him being the loser in more stringent officiating. He had so much game on the block, mid range, and deep, he'd have been one of the last people to suffer from better officiated games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
A few, but I think he'd have fouled out a lot of guys until they adjusted to the calls. And frankly, given his arsenal of offensive moves, I don't see him being the loser in more stringent officiating. He had so much game on the block, mid range, and deep, he'd have been one of the last people to suffer from better officiated games.

Agreed, pretty much all players would adjust to officiating.
 
I guess the B1G coaches as a group can push for rule changes/officiating changes that favor B1G style of play....all the conferences and mid majors that are taking advantage of current system would oppose it.

Iowa Fans can complain about it on this board and I would expect that would have zero effect.

While the skill level at the NBA is clearly at another level, I don't think that product is super exciting either.

I like the college game and seeing Iowa do well, so whatever rule changes to improve Iowa chances are fine by me. Or perhaps B1G coaches should up their game.
 
This thread reminds me of something I have noticed.

Player 1 with the ball runs into Player 2 - there is contact. Player 2 falls backwards to the floor.

No call.

Doesn't it almost HAVE to be a block, a charge or a flop?
Not necessarily. There's been a lot of discussion about the emphasis on determining the difference between block/charges and incidental contact (i.e. playing on).

So when you see something like this happen, it could possibly be because the ref deemed it to be incidental contact and not worthy of a foul either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
Not necessarily. There's been a lot of discussion about the emphasis on determining the difference between block/charges and incidental contact (i.e. playing on).

So when you see something like this happen, it could possibly be because the ref deemed it to be incidental contact and not worthy of a foul either way.
Fair enough. But when Player 2 falls to the floor, and the contact is considered incidental, isn't that a flop?

I don't like the new rule. I think officials are hesitant to call technical fouls on players. The penalty is too harsh IMO.
 
Fair enough. But when Player 2 falls to the floor, and the contact is considered incidental, isn't that a flop?

I don't like the new rule. I think officials are hesitant to call technical fouls on players. The penalty is too harsh IMO.
Again, more than likely not (or not necessarily), especially if the contact is deemed incidental. If a player falls back in an unnatural-looking motion compared to the contact observed, that's where you could get a flop call.

If there's incidental contact, that'd be like a player tripping over another player's leg when moving backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT