12:18pm: In his full report on the proposed rule changes, Wojnarowski provides more details on what the changes to the clear-path foul rule and the “hostile act” rule would entail.
11:54am: The NBA’s Board of Governors will vote next month on three potential rule changes recommended by the league’s Competition Committee, according to reports from Shams Charania of Yahoo Sports and Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN (Twitter links). The proposed rule changes are as follows:
- Having the shot clock reset to 14 seconds instead of 24 seconds after an offensive rebound.
- A simplification of the clear-path foul rule.
- An expanded definition of what constitutes a “hostile act” for the purposes of triggering an instant-replay review.
We don’t know yet what the specifics of the second and third proposals would look like, but those changes are unlikely to have a significant impact on the NBA’s on-court product anyway. The first proposed rule change is the most intriguing of the bunch.
The NBA has experimented with the 14-second shot clock after an offensive rebound – which helps speed up the game – in the G League and Summer League, and appears to be leaning toward implementing it for the coming season. The rule also exists in the WNBA and in FIBA play.
According to Wojnarowski, the NBA’s Board of Governors is considered likely to pass all three new rules at their meetings next month, which take place from September 20-21. Team owners will vote on the proposals, and each rule will require a two-thirds approval rate in order to be implemented for the 2018/19 season.
I dont like the first rule for NBA games. It’s fine in the other settings. That doesnt make it a worthy change in the NBA. Doesnt penalize a team enough for giving up that offensive rebound at the end of the game.
No way. This should make games way more exciting at the end, with likely extra possessions. And I hate when a team plays perfect defense and forces a bad shot, but due to the hectic defensive give up an offensive rebound and have to do it again for 24 seconds meaning a team just burned nearly a minute of game time
Well, you have to be able to recover and get that rebound. And on a long shot, you know it’s likely going to he a long rebound. My own team has been burned by this countless times, but it’s part of the game. Getting the rebound is how you end the defensive possession
I also can see a lot more offensive rebounds leading to threes than we’re already seeing. With less time to operate, I can see teams taking quicker shots off of those rebounds more often, instead of resetting. That could lead to more hard closeouts, and more of a scramble on defense to recover, and teams might end up getting more looks at the rim/foul situations. Not that it would be much of an issue, as we’ve seen offensive rebounds are one of the best opportunities for a wide open 3.
I just think this takes away from the team getting the offensive rebound, and doesnt penalize the defense enough for giving up that rebound in certain situations. Look at the first 3 years of this recent Cavs run. Do they beat Atlanta and Boston the ways they did without all of the offensive rebounds by Thompson leading to sooo many extra possessions and all of that extra time they were able to use? Why is this rule change happening now, and not then? I just think it has too much of an effect on a crucial part of the game to make this change right now, especially with how certain defenses are built. There should be that advantage to getting the offensive rebound against that smaller lineup
If they don’t get the rebound, then it is not perfect defense.
Rebounding is also defense.
This will add to the small ball game. It’s not as essential to get that defensive rebound because the other team will have to jack it up quicker. Thus the need for shooters based on that also. More and more small ball. Less and less big men.
Add 4 more titles to the run-and-gun Warriors rather than just the next two.
Unless a team is trying to run out the clock with the lead towards the end of a game, it really doesn’t matter.
Change the rule. Team doesn’t need a full 24 to run their offense again. Plus you forget that the 24 begins to roll once the ball is inbounded and has to travel down court before offense starts.
I’d like them to implement a rule change of ‘advantage’ similar to football (not American football) so the team don’t have to inbound the ball after a shot clock violation by the other team – they’d be allowed to fast-break once controlling the ball. (I think it’s this that causes me frustration when watching – can’t quite remember! It’s been SO LONG)
What is this hostile act nonsense
It’s what Chris Paul does every time he doesn’t get his call.
I do like the looks of it, I don’t wanna see a time pounding the air of the ball for 20 seconds at the end of the game before thinking what to do with it, 14 seconds is plenty of time to reset & retry, play fast & hard, not wasting time, I wanna see a team winning by shooting better or by smarts, not just by wasting time.
With the big man dying in the NBA they wanna take away from the importance of rebounding?
Let’s actually ENFORCE the rule on Traveling.
How’s about a stricter palming rule? No one would get further than two dribbles!
14 seconds is a bit tight, but the ball is already advanced, so no big deal.
This may reduce fouls towards the end of games because a defense that gives up the rebound will be more likely to play it out, instead of fouling intentionally.
I can’t stand how fouling draws out games, but the league has been helpless in the past trying to get the refs to call intentional fouls.
Instead of weird new hostility rules, the league should call fouls on the refs in ways that will get them to call things how they should in the first place. People turn away from the game when things don’t look right.