On Thursday, a report from ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski stated that the NBA’s Board of Governors is preparing to vote on three rule changes to be instated ahead of the upcoming 2018-19 season.
It’s far from uncommon for the league and it’s governing body to re-assess the state of the game.
Around this time last year, the NBA, in their everlasting quest to tweak and improve the product on the court, put in place a number of rules pertaining to timeouts — including shortening them from 90 seconds to 75 — and the flow of the game, establishing a penalty for free-throw shooters who stray far from the free-throw line between attempts. Also introduced were stricter rules on halftime length and when a team must reappear on the court, among other regulations.
The aim was fairly straight-forward: erasing unnecessary slows to the game to make for a shorter, better, smoother, more uninterrupted viewing experience for the fans — something other sports (*cough* Baseball *cough*) are trying to accomplish as our collective attention spans dwindle in the new media age.
What would the latest set of rule changes accomplish, and why might the NBA’s Board of Governors vote in favour of them? Let’s take a closer look.
The Shot Clock Reset
The biggest change in terms of how it will impact both the fans and players is the proposed rule to shorten the shot clock to 14 seconds following an offensive rebound. Currently the shot clock resets to a full 24 seconds after an offensive rebound.
There are a couple of reasons why this change could be made. For starters, this is something that already exists — and works well — in both the WNBA and FIBA rulebooks. Don’t expect the NBA to go as far as to eliminate goaltending, which is not a violation in FIBA rules, but it makes sense for the NBA to help seek more uniformity across the game at it’s highest ranks.
The 14-second rule has also been used in the G League and was introduced to the Summer League last month.
The second reason is obvious. By shortening the shot clock it speeds up the game and will lead to more shot attempts. Perhaps the most impactful repercussion is how it could impact close games down the stretch by making it more difficult for teams with a one- or two-possession lead in the final minutes to corral an offensive rebound and milk out the clock for 20 seconds before manufacturing a shot attempt. Picture fewer of those moments where a point guard dribbles aimlessly at the top of the key while eyeing the shot clock as the defence anxiously waits for something — anything — to happen.
Of course, offensive rebounds don’t often lead to long, drawn-out possessions, so on the whole the rule change likely won’t be too dramatic. In many cases, grabbing the offensive board leads to quick opportunities for a second chance to score with the rebounder either going for an immediate shot attempt at the hoop or kicking the ball out to find an open shooter before the defence has time to reset.
The following is an extreme example, sure, but the point remains:
Clear-path fouls
Here is how the ESPN report explains the proposed tweaks to assessing clear-path fouls:
Under the changes to the clear-path rule, a clear path to the basket would be in play in these three instances:
• “A personal foul is committed on any offensive player during his team’s transition scoring opportunity.”
• “When the foul occurs, the ball is ahead of the tip of the circle in the backcourt, no defensive player is ahead of the offensive player with the scoring opportunity and that offensive player is in control of the ball or a pass to him has been released.”
• “The defensive foul deprives the offensive team of a transition scoring opportunity.”
In the instance of a clear-path foul, the team is given two free throw attempts and possession on the sideline closest to where the foul happened.
The proposed new rules would make it a little more transparent in terms of when a clear-path foul has or hasn’t been committed, which takes some of the discretionary, on-the-spot decision-making away from the referees.
Like the recent call to use instant replay more often, it seems the NBA is seeking to stray away from personal judgement and, in turn, human error on the part of the referees, instead equipping them to better call-it-by-the-book — something that, given the speed of the game, is probably easier said than done.
Defining a “hostile act”
The simplest one to explain, currently any “hostile act” between players (an elbow, punch, kick or shot to the head, per the current rulebook) is subject to instant replay to better help officials assess penalties. If the proposed amendment is passed, the league will now extend replay beyond player-to-player to include incidents in which a “hostile act” occurs between a player and a coach, referee, or fan.
https://twitter.com/_robotshane/status/951267346341011456
Each proposed rule would require two-thirds of the vote to pass, and whether or not they are instituted will be determined following their meeting on Sept. 20-21.
[relatedlinks]
