NBA Proposed Rule Changes for 2018-19 Season

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
4,077
The NBA's board of governors are expected to pass rule changes for the 2018-19 season that include resetting the shot clock after an offensive rebound to 14 seconds from 24, simplifying the clear-path foul rule and expanding the definition of the "hostile act" to more easily trigger instant replay, league sources told ESPN.
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 expanded definition of the "hostile act" to trigger instant replay would now extend beyond interaction with another player to also include a hostile interaction with a referee, coach or a fan.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24454530/nba-expected-pass-rule-changes-including-changing-shot-clock-14-seconds-offensive-rebound

The offensive rebound rule is . . . interesting. Will that even further diminish the value of traditional big men?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
29,669
The offensive rebound rule is fascinating. HBDS is right in that traditional big men will likely see another hit to their value.

On the flipside, bigger wings with rebounding skills, good rebounding guards and bigs who play like wings will continue to see their stocks rise. A guy like Al Horford probably wishes that with the evolution of the game as welll as these rule changes and the rising salary cap came even sooner in his career. Meanwhile, this rule should also help a guy like Rozier and, even more so, guys like Murray and Simmons.

Lastly, it almost certainly means less dribbling and fewer ISOs following an offensive board which is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,837
I don't like the 14 second rule. Why should the offense be penalized when the defense fails to box out? And what's the rationale for allowing 24 seconds on other changes of possession that do not involve inbounding the ball, e.g. a steal?

It's about more time for commercials as far as I can see.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,876
Palo Alto
Could this actually lead to more efficient post ORB possessions? So often they kick it out and slow down so much when it seems like keeping the pressure on might be a better option.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
17,072
I don't like the 14 second rule. Why should the offense be penalized when the defense fails to box out? And what's the rationale for allowing 24 seconds on other changes of possession that do not involve inbounding the ball, e.g. a steal?

It's about more time for commercials as far as I can see.
If they wanted to be consistent (noted that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds), they should have reset the clock to 16 seconds as eliminating the 8 seconds it takes to get the ball into the half court would be, well, consistent.

14 is fine.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,813
I don't like the 14 second rule. Why should the offense be penalized when the defense fails to box out? And what's the rationale for allowing 24 seconds on other changes of possession that do not involve inbounding the ball, e.g. a steal?

It's about more time for commercials as far as I can see.

How will this lead to more commercials? TV timeouts and total timeouts aren’t changing and teams will adjust. It’s not like there’s suddenly going to be 20 shot clock violations.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
20,678
Saskatoon Canada
The 14 second rule in fiba makes it less likely a game ends with makig fts the key thing.Old rule my team is winning by 1 gets an o-board inside of 24 teams foul. New rule you can get a stop, or even give up a two and advance the ball on the timeout to get a 3 to tie. As a traditionalist I like the critical nature of late game rebounds.

I went back to coaching this year with the fiba rules, and on onme hand, much of my in game skills as a coach, decision making, who to foul, inbounds plays to go full length of the court late in games, subbing o/d down the stretch, etc are less v lauable and mostly you just let your guys play, the have to keep scoring to win games. I coach a less talented middle of the pack team, and these rules favor the deeper talented team, rather than the team that can execute a game plan. FIBA's goal is speed up the game, make end f games fast paced, etc. Not sure I like it but it is exciting.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
22,229
Melrose, MA
And what's the rationale for allowing 24 seconds on other changes of possession that do not involve inbounding the ball, e.g. a steal?
The rationale would be that there is no change of possession on an offensive rebound, so they are treating it like a pre-bonus floor foul (where the shot clock resets to 14 if it was <14 at the time of the foul).

(I assume they aren’t talking about resetting to 14 if there is >14 seconds on the shot clock at the time of the rebound, which would penalize the offense).
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
10,071
Somewhere
I don't like the 14 second rule. Why should the offense be penalized when the defense fails to box out? And what's the rationale for allowing 24 seconds on other changes of possession that do not involve inbounding the ball, e.g. a steal?

It's about more time for commercials as far as I can see.
More possessions is what I see here, which means higher scoring and slightly more randomness in outcomes
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,219
Charleston, SC
More possessions is what I see here, which means higher scoring and slightly more randomness in outcomes
Shouldn't it be the opposite? I thought the more scoring opportunities/possessions, the more likely it is that talent shines through and noise goes away - which is they the NBA is the most predictable sport, because it has the most possessions.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,258
Saint Paul, MN
(I assume they aren’t talking about resetting to 14 if there is >14 seconds on the shot clock at the time of the rebound, which would penalize the offense).
Wonder if they thought about just not resetting the clock if the offensive team gets the rebound on a shot they took with >14 seconds on the clock.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,813
Wonder if they thought about just not resetting the clock if the offensive team gets the rebound on a shot they took with >14 seconds on the clock.
Do we want to add more situations where officials are checking clock and play of the floor? End of shot clock/quarter is one thing with buzzer and/or lights on backboard.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
10,071
Somewhere
Shouldn't it be the opposite? I thought the more scoring opportunities/possessions, the more likely it is that talent shines through and noise goes away - which is they the NBA is the most predictable sport, because it has the most possessions.
you are correct. early midwestern am, kids running around, no coffee yet
 

Light-Tower-Power

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
8,116
I'm not sure how I feel about the 14 second shot clock on offensive boards, but I definitely do not like the expanded definition of "hostile act". The last thing the NBA needs is more replay.
 

ugmo33

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2016
60
Isn't the clear path definition much more impactful than the OBoard rule? If I'm reading it right, isn't the new rule just how Van Gundy wanted it? I guess the lazy "Euro foul" is still a normal foul but it seems like this rule change will make a pretty big difference for transition D
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,080
around the way
Isn't the clear path definition much more impactful than the OBoard rule? If I'm reading it right, isn't the new rule just how Van Gundy wanted it? I guess the lazy "Euro foul" is still a normal foul but it seems like this rule change will make a pretty big difference for transition D
Yes, more clear path. It's infuriating to watch a fast break die with a cheap foul at halfcourt.

I'm fine with the rebound one as well. When they did it with kicked balls and such a few years back, it helped speed things along. Hell, the first ten seconds of most shot clocks are wasted time already.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,044
Noboby is yet talking about the one rule change of this offseason which will be the most talked about topic to start the year...…….

For the first time in league history the rule has been relaxed to allow players to individually express themselves by wearing any color/style of sneaker that they wish. Already many players have tweeted that they are excited about this change and plan on taking advantage of it to build their brand...….with the support of their sneaker company of course. It sounds like there could be some crazy stuff out there and having 10 contrasting colors on the floor together may not be the best look for the fan of the game.

Staying on sneaker topic which unfortunately has a political twist to it......keep an eye on Sept 30th which is the date each year when most sneaker contracts expire. Between NBA players "possibly" choosing to show their support to Nike and the companies recognizing the value to the NBA rule change this could be an aggressive time for players to be changing allegiances either for a cause they believe in or to cash a larger check.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,044
I am failing to see how this is not a good look
Imagine your starting five.....

Purple
Blue
Orange
Red
Pink

It's going to rival the night I watched Danny Fortson, Troy Hudson, and Latrell Sprewell on the floor together each with pigtails.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
35,400
Imagine your starting five.....

Purple
Blue
Orange
Red
Pink

It's going to rival the night I watched Danny Fortson, Troy Hudson, and Latrell Sprewell on the floor together each with pigtails.
Three guys with the same hairstyle sounds like the opposite of what you're worried about.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,837
Teams ought to have 20-25 different sets of sneakers so everyone can wear the same color, including the cheerleaders. Some of the colors. should be fluorescent.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,755
Portsmouth, NH
Noboby is yet talking about the one rule change of this offseason which will be the most talked about topic to start the year...…….

For the first time in league history the rule has been relaxed to allow players to individually express themselves by wearing any color/style of sneaker that they wish. Already many players have tweeted that they are excited about this change and plan on taking advantage of it to build their brand...….with the support of their sneaker company of course. It sounds like there could be some crazy stuff out there and having 10 contrasting colors on the floor together may not be the best look for the fan of the game.

Staying on sneaker topic which unfortunately has a political twist to it......keep an eye on Sept 30th which is the date each year when most sneaker contracts expire. Between NBA players "possibly" choosing to show their support to Nike and the companies recognizing the value to the NBA rule change this could be an aggressive time for players to be changing allegiances either for a cause they believe in or to cash a larger check.
What was the previous rule? I haven't paid much attention to it since noticing the Celtics stopped all wearing black shoes, but I seem to recall noticing in the last few years that they weren't in unison and seeing multiple colors. (I fully admit, I could be making that up in my own head,)
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,044
What was the previous rule? I haven't paid much attention to it since noticing the Celtics stopped all wearing black shoes, but I seem to recall noticing in the last few years that they weren't in unison and seeing multiple colors. (I fully admit, I could be making that up in my own head,)
I'm pretty sure it was either white or black.....but an entire team could wear any color so long as the entire team wore the same color.
OK. I am imagining it.
Now what?
I dunno…….a ridiculous look?
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,813
I'm pretty sure it was either white or black.....but an entire team could wear any color so long as the entire team wore the same color.
Teams most assuredly did not need to wear the same color shoes last season.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,755
Portsmouth, NH
Teams most assuredly did not need to wear the same color shoes last season.
Yeah this. I lost the link, but best I can tell the ‘rule’ was that they had to be white, black or ‘team colors’. Given the amount of alternate jerseys every team seemingly has now, that last one seems, um, loose? This seems like a distinction without a difference.