Is it at all possible they are outlined in the link provided?

Above post was me.

Just to clarify: 754 was me. 753 wasn't.

The optional advancement/14-second shot clock after timeouts in the last two minutes is going to wreak havoc with a lot of late-game strategy. Should be a lot of fun while everyone figures it out.

Knee jerk rule changes and pedantic shot clock responsibilities to confuse those who already find that task a challenge, fine but what about real rule changes to make the game 'more spectacular, free flowing & fluid'?

How about, gee I don't know, maybe not allowing defenders to hack the crap out of a player going to the basket who is open and vulnerable by calling the unsportsmanlike foul when it should be called!

Or maybe calling a foul on a defender who blocks an opposing player's run, especially in the key where wrestling appears to be acceptable these days!

Or maybe, just maybe, call the damn holding in the paint instead of yelling out 'hands off' sixteen times a quarter before a foul is called, so skill players can actually play the game the way it was intended......!

Why are FIBA making idiotic and unnecessarily complex rule changes under the auspice of 'more spectacular and fluid' play when we are not actually interpreting or adjudicating the bloody rules we already have, that will actually make the game more spectacular & fluid?

Rant over...

Bear, totally agree, on absolutely all counts ... but can I add attention to players charging [repeatedly driving their shoulder into the chest of a legally positioned defender] in the low post to the list of neglected areas needing attention?

Couldn't have said the rest as well as you have.

Yeah @Pop, that is another area they just don't appear to interpret properly or just ignore.

My point of course is more about how the rules are being interpreted as the real issue that needs addressing by FIBA, rather than introducing more bloody rules.

I know I may sound like a broken record or something, but I have watched lots of basketball and love the game, but I find these types of announcements just frustrating and difficult to tolerate.

The way I see it is this: Identify the root causes and real issues, then fix them with real solutions, don't just make politically correct or cosmetic rule changes to justify your existence. This in charge need to be sacked and replaced by people who live in the real world, or at least start talking to them...

Now the rant is over!

...Those in charge...

KR: the 14 sec clock rule in last 2 min might result in more changes of possession and the final 2 minutes being extended in real time. Driven by advertising revenue considerations perhaps?

Pop: shoulder charging of legally positioned defenders would already be covered by charge/ O foul calls, you seem to be implying that refs just need to interpret properly and call it

"@Why are FIBA making idiotic and unnecessarily complex rule changes under the auspice of 'more spectacular and fluid' play when we are not actually interpreting or adjudicating the bloody rules we already have, that will actually make the game more spectacular & fluid?"


So the freeloaders who are on these committees can justify their junkets to all their meetings and tournaments.

I was on a national training committee once in the indudtry I worked in. I tried my best to limit changes and keep things simple as I was also involved with delivery of any changes and understood the cost,time and effort involved in implimentation and also the fact that there was very little real return on that investment. Many of those involved just dragged meetings on and came up with the most trivial BS excuses to change things or add new competencies as they were on the clock for their time and living the good life while away.

Anon @818, the 3 second rule should of course be enforced, however if your comment is in reference to the issue of a big player camping in the paint etc... I would suggest that the problem would not exist if players could post up without having to wrestle with their opponents. Common sense and logical observations need to be applied.

No where in the rules can I find a clause that allows a player to defend by placing arms around their opponent, pushing into their opponent, blocking their run, grabbing them by the arm or climbing over an opponent's back.

So, let's be fair here, if the interpretation of the existing rules is such that a physical defender (possibly less skilled) is allowed to use such tactics that illegally prevents clean possession of the ball by an attacking player in the paint, the 3 second rule will compound the problem of officiating it properly because it usually takes more than 3 seconds to get free from your opponent's grip.

Cause and effect!

Last time I looked it was FIBA, not the WWE...

KR: the 14 sec clock rule in last 2 min might result in more changes of possession and the final 2 minutes being extended in real time. Driven by advertising revenue considerations perhaps?

What is FIBA ruling on a player ( Offence or defense) that leaves playing area and runs down sideline or endline to gain advantage. Either to avoid screens, congestion, and gain a better defensive position or receive ball on offence.

I don't believe there is one anymore, unless they're specifically doing it to avoid a three-second call.

The optional advancement/14-second shot clock after timeouts in the last two minutes is going to wreak havoc with a lot of late-game strategy. Should be a lot of fun while everyone figures it out.