PonyFans.com

Both of these irk me...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4147745

In the proposal of substituting for a free throw shooter who has been injured, the opposing coach would choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court.

"This rule change is intended to eliminate a team that is fouled from gaining an advantage that it does not deserve,"

This is just boneheaded. In an effort to prevent an advantage being gained by the fouled team, you are giving one to the fouling team. Why does the team that can't play by the rules get the preferential treatment? Essentially you can now injure a team's best player, then put their most Shaq-tastic free throw shooter on the line. It's a win-win for the offending team. Besides, it's not like teams are stocking their benches with free throw specialists just to take advantage of this rule.

The recommendation on play under the basket won't call for a restricted-area arc painted in the lane as the NBA has, but it prohibits a secondary defender from establishing position in the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard. A defender must establish position outside that area to draw a charge or player-control foul.

On this one, I'm not a fan of the NBA rules. I understand this is slightly different, but what it turns into is a free pass for offensive players to bowl over anyone around the basket. Why should a defensive player not be allowed to establish defensive position in the most important area of the court?

MustangStealth wrote:Both of these irk me...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4147745

In the proposal of substituting for a free throw shooter who has been injured, the opposing coach would choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court.

"This rule change is intended to eliminate a team that is fouled from gaining an advantage that it does not deserve,"

This is just boneheaded. In an effort to prevent an advantage being gained by the fouled team, you are giving one to the fouling team. Why does the team that can't play by the rules get the preferential treatment? Essentially you can now injure a team's best player, then put their most Shaq-tastic free throw shooter on the line. It's a win-win for the offending team. Besides, it's not like teams are stocking their benches with free throw specialists just to take advantage of this rule.

thats the rule in the NBA

expony18 wrote:

MustangStealth wrote:Both of these irk me...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4147745

In the proposal of substituting for a free throw shooter who has been injured, the opposing coach would choose the player to attempt the free throws from the four remaining players on the court.

"This rule change is intended to eliminate a team that is fouled from gaining an advantage that it does not deserve,"

This is just boneheaded. In an effort to prevent an advantage being gained by the fouled team, you are giving one to the fouling team. Why does the team that can't play by the rules get the preferential treatment? Essentially you can now injure a team's best player, then put their most Shaq-tastic free throw shooter on the line. It's a win-win for the offending team. Besides, it's not like teams are stocking their benches with free throw specialists just to take advantage of this rule.

thats the rule in the NBA

I think the idea here is to prevent a shaq-like player from faking an injury in order to get a much better free throw shooter into the game.

You solve that by not fouling Shaq and many times the injury is the result of a hard foul. I agree this is a ridiculous proposal.