What NBA rules would you change?

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,172
Allow teams the ability to decline a foul, the way football teams can decline a penalty.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,601
around the way
Very trivial, but I'd bring back the 10-second back court violation, instead of the current 8 second.

Front court clock still resets to 14 seconds, instead of 16. And players seem to have to rush, sometimes, to get over half court.
I don't have a problem with the 8 second rule when the defense is pressing, but I am definitely tired of guys having to hustle the ball over half court just to avoid the blanket call. Outside of pressing situation, it's stupid process bullshit.

Yes, we want the game to move along. Sometimes guys are tired after a long possession and plan to milk the clock on this one anyway. Who cares which side of the line they milk it.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,200
Somerville MA
The intentional fouls in the last minute of the game could go with the 1+the ball rule as well. Yes it would result in less last-minute comebacks, but it would do away with a lot of tedium.
I think these would be tougher to differentiate. The team trailing is incentivized to try to aggressively strip the ball, risking fouls at a higher rate. Which ones are intentional fouls and which ones are just aggressive steal attempts?

I do think you could do away with the ones where someone just grabs an arm or jersey from behind when they break press.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
6,962
Monument, CO
Flopping. I love the talent in the NBA but the flopping is disgraceful. Watching Embid, Hardin, Smart, Lowry, and everyone else fake getting hit drives me crazy. I hope they can come up with a way to stop it.
 

Jakarta

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2020
185
Have the league office review potential flops after each game and assess a technical for every blatant flop/head snap. Having the technicals accumulate towards a possible suspension should limit the most blatant flopping and also takes the responsibility of identifying the flop at live game speed out of the officials’ hands.
 

Five Cent Head

64th note
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2007
647
Seattle
It's probably been brought up, but add a potential challenge: if a coach has a successful challenge in quarters 1-3, they keep their challenge. Then if an official makes an obvious bad call early in the game, there isn't as much risk to using a challenge. This can only happen once: they don't get infinitely many successful challenges. Allowing two potential challenges for each coach in the 4th quarter could slow the game down too much, so that's why I would limit it.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,161
Los Angeles, CA
It's probably been brought up, but add a potential challenge: if a coach has a successful challenge in quarters 1-3, they keep their challenge. Then if an official makes an obvious bad call early in the game, there isn't as much risk to using a challenge. This can only happen once: they don't get infinitely many successful challenges. Allowing two potential challenges for each coach in the 4th quarter could slow the game down too much, so that's why I would limit it.
I think I saw a report recently which said the teams were largely in agreement with such a change and that it was likely to happen soon. Am I imagining things? I'll look for it later when I'm back home.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,161
Los Angeles, CA
Have the league office review potential flops after each game and assess a technical for every blatant flop/head snap. Having the technicals accumulate towards a possible suspension should limit the most blatant flopping and also takes the responsibility of identifying the flop at live game speed out of the officials’ hands.
I've been wondering what happened the last time the league said they were going to do this, and the answer helps explain why flopping persists to this day.
On May 28, 2008, the NBA announced that it would impose fines on players who show a clear case of flopping and suspensions for repeat offenders. However, the league did not impose any fines, but continued to monitor the situation.
GJGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flop_(basketball)#History
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
6,408
Imaginationland
Players on the ground with the ball (with opponents scuffling trying to either steal it or get a jump ball) shouldn't be able to call timeout. Officials already acknowledge that possession is pretty hazy when a player is on the ground and guys are fighting for the ball (given the amount of contact that is typically allowed in that situation) and we already don't allow players to call timeout when in mid-air, it seems pretty simple to not allow timeouts when the player with possession is off his feet.
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,625
Playoff referee assignments should be objectively merit-based somehow
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,536
Saskatoon Canada
Have the league office review potential flops after each game and assess a technical for every blatant flop/head snap. Having the technicals accumulate towards a possible suspension should limit the most blatant flopping and also takes the responsibility of identifying the flop at live game speed out of the officials’ hands.
If I was comish I would go after this like they did cocaine and hand checking. I would make a rule against faking contact. Any faking of contact would be a fine, and build up to suspensions. A violating player would enter the next game a technical foul, so real tech or flopping tech in that game would be an ejection. Each game would be reviewed and the result of the games would not be affected, but the players would pay the price.
Flopping on jump-shot attempts (the Harden) would be an in-game technical foul.

I would combine this by making the take foul, or the stop transition foul an unsportsmanlike fould like FIBA (1ft and possession) Combine the unsportsmanlike with tech or preloaded tech from flopping and it is an ejection.

When I made my statement I would say the legacy of players is to change rules,The great LBJ, taught a generation to pretend they got hit rather than power through contact.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,073
Playoff referee assignments should be objectively merit-based somehow
They allegedly are, they are based on the NBA's internal grading. but beyond their grading being inscrutable... it also means they mix up crews. They should do grades by Crew and keep them together as a unit in the playoffs.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
38,926
Here
The challenge rules in general are stupid. Why can’t you challenge a travel, for example? That’s a lot more objective call than a charge.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
37,295
AZ
If I was comish I would go after this like they did cocaine and hand checking. I would make a rule against faking contact. Any faking of contact would be a fine, and build up to suspensions. A violating player would enter the next game a technical foul, so real tech or flopping tech in that game would be an ejection. Each game would be reviewed and the result of the games would not be affected, but the players would pay the price.
Flopping on jump-shot attempts (the Harden) would be an in-game technical foul.

I would combine this by making the take foul, or the stop transition foul an unsportsmanlike fould like FIBA (1ft and possession) Combine the unsportsmanlike with tech or preloaded tech from flopping and it is an ejection.

When I made my statement I would say the legacy of players is to change rules,The great LBJ, taught a generation to pretend they got hit rather than power through contact.
The bolded seems like a problem with ever getting this off the ground. Leagues don't like to do things publicly that basically undermine the result. And that's effectively what you'd be doing here. In any close game, the league's after-game review would sometimes confirm that a team lost unfairly. Fans and gamblers would be pissed.

The NFL has been reasonably forthright about occasionally saying when there was an officiating error in a game. But for whatever reason the NFL seems to be teflon and nobody seems to care very much. I don't know if other leagues can weather repeated statements finding that the result of the game very well could have been different if officiated fairly.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,536
Saskatoon Canada
The bolded seems like a problem with ever getting this off the ground. Leagues don't like to do things publicly that basically undermine the result. And that's effectively what you'd be doing here. In any close game, the league's after-game review would sometimes confirm that a team lost unfairly. Fans and gamblers would be pissed.

The NFL has been reasonably forthright about occasionally saying when there was an officiating error in a game. But for whatever reason the NFL seems to be teflon and nobody seems to care very much. I don't know if other leagues can weather repeated statements finding that the result of the game very well could have been different if officiated fairly.
Only in the short term. Refs already announce a call was wrong, and before replays, there were tons of times, even playoff games where the replay showed a bad call cost the game. The Cards lost the WS on a bad call. Players get suspended for plays that were not even flagged at the time. It is not that new to impose a penalty after further review. The refs have enough to worry about without having to catch this crap in real time. The very real explanation is the players have been allowed to behave without integrity and are so skilled at physically lying it needs to stop. Flopping is just the other side of intentionally injuring an opponent. To pretend you are hurt or were hit makes the already difficult job of keeping players safe more difficult and cheapens the real pain and suffering of athletes who actually were knocked over.

There is absolutely no way to end this game-ruining behavior without a video review. That will necessitate delaying the consequences, but there must be consequences. The fans hate flopping and will accept a cleanup.

Gamblers? who cares.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
37,295
AZ
Gamblers? who cares.
I don't. But it's big business and I think generally speaking that the leagues want the books to be happy.

The books already have a problem with stat corrections. They want to settle bets quickly. Stat corrections are difficult for the books, because they turn paid winners into losers and the books would have to deal with clawbacks, but they try to write around that problem in their house rules. I'm sure the leagues and the books talk about these things. It's in both of their interests to have results be, and appear to be, conclusive when the whistle blows.

I'm not suggesting that I personally give a shit. I'd very much like to see flopping eradicated. I'm just pessimistic that it's going to be a priority.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,991
Saint Paul, MN
Don't know the fix, but I hate the foul call when the offensive player feels the slightest contact on his arm by defenders hand (or no contact at all), then wildly throws up a shot so that he initiates the contact.
 

Five Cent Head

64th note
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2007
647
Seattle
When the ball goes out of bounds off of someone from team A, they lose half a point for each team member pointing the wrong way for possession.
 

Eagle3

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
480
The bolded seems like a problem with ever getting this off the ground. Leagues don't like to do things publicly that basically undermine the result. And that's effectively what you'd be doing here. In any close game, the league's after-game review would sometimes confirm that a team lost unfairly. Fans and gamblers would be pissed.

The NFL has been reasonably forthright about occasionally saying when there was an officiating error in a game. But for whatever reason the NFL seems to be teflon and nobody seems to care very much. I don't know if other leagues can weather repeated statements finding that the result of the game very well could have been different if officiated fairly.
The NBA has a rule in place that facilitates unfair finishes. When a team scores to take the lead with 3 seconds or less left, the game SHOULD be all but over barring a miracle heave. But if the other team has a timeout left they get the ball over half court with plenty of time to get off a very good shot to win the game. OR, if a team scores with a few seconds left but is still behind by 2 the game is basically over if the other team has a TO since they go to midcourt and dont have to worry about the inbounds pass getting stolen.
What could be more unfair than those scenarios, which dramatically affect outcomes? If the Pistons had a timeout, Bird to DJ after the steal of Isiah's pass would have had to have been a 60 footer instead of a layup.

There is no other rule in any other sport that I can think of where you gain such a huge advantage by calling a timeout.
Nobody seems to make a big deal about it though.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,601
around the way
They allegedly are, they are based on the NBA's internal grading. but beyond their grading being inscrutable... it also means they mix up crews. They should do grades by Crew and keep them together as a unit in the playoffs.
Great idea. It's awesome that they do grading on individuals--they must. But for playoff assignments, they really should be graded on a crew, with crews being kept together.

Edit-love Reggie's idea of cracking down on the sniper shot bullshit. Real fines that are actually imposed would be a good start.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
7,233
Great idea. It's awesome that they do grading on individuals--they must. But for playoff assignments, they really should be graded on a crew, with crews being kept together.

Edit-love Reggie's idea of cracking down on the sniper shot bullshit. Real fines that are actually imposed would be a good start.
I know one of them will end up being really offended but I’m not sure if the “sniper shot” should officially be renamed “The Harden Head Toss” or the “Trae Throwback”
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,601
around the way
I know one of them will end up being really offended but I’m not sure if the “sniper shot” should officially be renamed “The Harden Head Toss” or the “Trae Throwback”
Ha. Pick one.

Watching this series, my wife has noted a few times how it seems physically impossible for Joel Embiid to end up on the ground so often when he's so much bigger and stronger than all of the other guys out there. I explain that it's just his thing.

We had some small traction on cutting into this stuff when they turned the deep swipethrough into a non-shooting foul (and only 2 shots if you're in the penalty) rather than 3 shots. More progress in that direction would be good. Any time someone isn't seriously attempting a shot but is only acting like they're attempting a shot in order to get to the line--that's what irritates me the most. But guys getting a light touch on the shoulder and acting like they just grabbed a live 20amp wire, that shit should be actively discouraged too.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,397
Boston, MA
Only in the short term. Refs already announce a call was wrong, and before replays, there were tons of times, even playoff games where the replay showed a bad call cost the game. The Cards lost the WS on a bad call. Players get suspended for plays that were not even flagged at the time. It is not that new to impose a penalty after further review. The refs have enough to worry about without having to catch this crap in real time. The very real explanation is the players have been allowed to behave without integrity and are so skilled at physically lying it needs to stop. Flopping is just the other side of intentionally injuring an opponent. To pretend you are hurt or were hit makes the already difficult job of keeping players safe more difficult and cheapens the real pain and suffering of athletes who actually were knocked over.

There is absolutely no way to end this game-ruining behavior without a video review. That will necessitate delaying the consequences, but there must be consequences. The fans hate flopping and will accept a cleanup.

Gamblers? who cares.
Preach. This professional level flopping and faking is such a detriment to the game and has to be regulated out of the league. Your approach is as good as any (in game technicals, fines, fines that lead to game suspensions) will get rid of it. Watching Trae Young, Harden, Lowry, Smart do this is infuriating and basic bad sportsmanship.
 

kfoss99

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2009
938
Two rules that I'd like to see changed:
1. No foul called for trying to fight over a pick.
2. If the offensive player initiates contact, either a no call or an offensive foul.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,161
Los Angeles, CA
Two rules that I'd like to see changed:
1. No foul called for trying to fight over a pick.
2. If the offensive player initiates contact, either a no call or an offensive foul.
Yeah, I hate the way it is today. The defensive player has every right to try to get around that pick as the offensive player does. The offensive player isn't entitled to that space, and it shouldn't automatically be a foul on the defense when there's contact.
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,752
West Hartford, CT
Yeah, I hate the way it is today. The defensive player has every right to try to get around that pick as the offensive player does. The offensive player isn't entitled to that space, and it shouldn't automatically be a foul on the defense when there's contact.
This would have the added benefit of cutting down on defenders doing the screen version of the TraeHarden Head Snipe, where they get a little contact on their hip and throw themselves around the pick, flailing and falling to the floor to get a whistle. (This has been getting worse and worse -- because the refs fall for it all the fucking time.)

No fouls on either the offense or defense on the high pick and roll unless it's egregious (e.g. a Gobertian hockey check).
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,138
Allow FT shooters the option of throwing themselves an alley oop instead of taking the FT.

Watching Mitchell Robinson, or prime Shaq, trying to convert bounce alley oops into vicious slam dunks before the other team’s players can impede them would be very entertaining. As an added bonus, we can hear Mark Davis say “Caught a body” more often.
 

amlothi

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2007
740
Allow FT shooters the option of throwing themselves an alley oop instead of taking the FT.

Watching Mitchell Robinson, or prime Shaq, trying to convert bounce alley oops into vicious slam dunks before the other team’s players can impede them would be very entertaining. As an added bonus, we can hear Mark Davis say “Caught a body” more often.
So they attempt an alley oop the first of two free throws and the other team fouls on the dunk attempt....And we have a never ending parade of freethrows and fouls?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
27,641
Not necessarily a "rule" but I'll repeat this until it happens....

Expanded court dimensions.
 

BigMike

Dope
Dope
Sep 26, 2000
22,994
Not necessarily a "rule" but I'll repeat this until it happens....

Expanded court dimensions.
We are of the same mind, the court is way to small for the size of todays players. I know it will never happen but 10 feet longer maybe 5-8 feet wider, move the 3pt line back a few feet.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,172
Being fouled on a 3 point attempt should only award 2 free throws just like any other shooting foul.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
3,930
Being fouled on a 3 point attempt should only award 2 free throws just like any other shooting foul.
Not sure that works because of the impact on close late game situations. Team down 3 with a few seconds left is basically guaranteed to have their shooter see a hard foul. Shouldn’t need to generate a perfectly open look to have a chance to tie in that situation, I don’t think.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,569
If the offensive player initiates contact, either a no call or an offensive foul.
More broadly, I'd like to see a general shift towards punishing the player— offensive or defensive— who initiates and provokes contact, regardless of other factors. That would mean— as you say— penalizing the offensive player who bulldozes the defensive player, even if the latter's feet aren't set. It would also mean not giving calls to defensive players who slide under a driving player to draw the charge. Any "unnatural motion designed to create contact" would be either called against the offending player, or a no-call at the very least.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
21,184
It should simply be that a foul is on the player initiating the contact. Basketball is “supposed” to be a “non contact” sport so whoever initiates the contact should be called for the foul. Yes that’ll be a judgment call. But basically so is everything else in basketball.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,172
Not sure that works because of the impact on close late game situations. Team down 3 with a few seconds left is basically guaranteed to have their shooter see a hard foul. Shouldn’t need to generate a perfectly open look to have a chance to tie in that situation, I don’t think.
Well then we'll also have to add the "intentional foul with under 1 minute in the game is a technical" rule.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,569
This is more along the lines of "interesting idea to contemplate" than "probable change", but...

I was just discussing with a friend the prevalence of the 3-pointer in today's game and imagining a rule where teams get a max number of made 3s per quarter (or maybe per game). After that, all shots count for two points, no matter where they are taken from. This would be an interesting way of devaluing the three without having to change court dimensions. Also it would also have an interesting effect in terms of (a) forcing offensive diversification— teams would have to cultivate an efficient 2pt game for situations where they'd reached the max, and (b) introducing a calculus whereby maybe a team doesn't want to "use up" all their 3s early in a quarter or game.