Three Rule Changes the WNBA Needs for 2012

by thewiz06 on Dec 22, 2011 3:47 PM EST

I know that we are still about five months away from the WNBA season. However, that doesn't mean that all talk about the league stops in the winter obviously. I have three proposals for the WNBA to change some rules for 2012 and beyond.

1. Move the three point line back to 6.75 meters, or 22 feet and 2 inches.

FIBA moved the line this far back in professional play just last year to 6.75 meters from 6.25 meters, and this goes for both men's and women's basketball. In addition, the college three point line in women's basketball has moved back to 20 feet and 9 inches. Currently, the WNBA three point line is at 6.25 meters, or 20 feet and 6.25 inches from the hoop. Don't tell me that WNBA players are less capable of shooting a three than NCAA players.

There is fear that three point scoring will dramatically decrease because the line is moving further back. I concede that to some degree, some players whose range only hits 20-21 feet will now no longer be considered capable three point shooters, but with many if not most of the best three point shooters can definitely drain it at 23 feet from the basket at will. I don't mind the line at the NBA length of 23 feet and 9 inches/22 feet at the corners either, but the FIBA length is appropriate to me. I think this will open up the court considerably and allow for more creative perimeter scoring opportunities which will showcase the talents of the likes of Cappie Pondexter and Diana Taurasi at their best. Three point marksmen like Sue Bird and Katie Douglas will also continue to gain more respect as more fans get to see them shoot from further away than they had to before. Big win for the shooters here in the long run.

If the WNBA wants to be called the best women's pro league in the world the rules must also be in line with that and this is the most visible change that can be made.

2. ADD THE RESTRICTED ARC!

All too often in the past few years, I have seen WNBA players, mostly post players just stand right at the hoop to take charges and then they get them successfully. That's total crap. In addition, the NCAA is adding the arc this year, and FIBA has it too. I don't care if it's three feet away (NCAA/FIBA) or four (NBA), but I cannot stand charges taken RIGHT AT THE HOOP! I just don't agree with players getting a successful charge right when another guy is going for a layup or a dunk. Simple as that.

3. IMPLEMENT THE DEFENSIVE THREE SECOND RULE!

I also cannot stand it when a center just stands in the key on defense when there is no action near her in a WNBA game. I get that this is allowed in college, though I think they are instituting this rule now as well. Whenever this happens, there should be a one shot technical. What this does is that it indirectly helps increase the pace of play in the league, and Americans love high scoring teams and games all around.

Conclusion

I think these rules will help increase scoring over time, mostly through increasing the pace of play since defenders can't just camp at the lane anymore. With a farther three point line, it opens up the court for the mid range play creators to show their stuff, and shows that WNBA players can shoot farther away than just the college line. This will hurt low post players who now must be more mobile on defense especially, but the best low post players will still be the best low post players at the end of the day. How much do you agree or disagree with these proposed rule changes?

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I actually believe at least two of these rules #1 & 2 will be implemented...

And I agree with the reasoning to implement them.

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Dec 22, 2011 4:25 PM EST reply actions

so the wnba is seriously considering it?

That is welcome news.

by thewiz06 on Dec 22, 2011 6:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

On its face, I really don't like #3.

I generally don’t favor rules that are designed solely to encourage offense or defense by restricting the strategic options available to the other team. I know I’m in the clear minority on this, but if a team feels their best defense is to camp the center, then I want to let them do it. If the other team can’t beat it, why should we write rules to force the defense out of it?

To better clarify my general guideline on this, consider hockey’s rules changes a few years back. I hated the goaltender restrictions because they did nothing but eliminate options for a team in their own zone. The open ice checking restrictions, on the other hand, were ok. Even though they did limit defensive options (and quite drastically) and were done partly to encourage offense, there were a lot of players getting injured pretty badly by the checks off of mid-ice traps. That rule served purposes other than encouraging offense.

Again, I know I’m a minority view, but I really do hate rules that limit defense just for the sake of limiting defense. (Most game-tilting rules favor offenses.)

by David Hooper on Dec 23, 2011 9:28 AM EST reply actions

It's different in basketball. A center camping under the basket is "puppy-guarding" like we said as kids, not playing strategic defense.

If that rule was enforced it would actually make baseline-to-baseline defense more hardworking, as well as man-to-man defense. I’m a defense nut!

Waffles, Digimon, SETOGUCHI

STALOCK GET A ROBOT LEG OR SOMETHING AND COME BACK~WE NEED SOME LOCK STOCK STALOCK HERE!!

Like manga, sci fi, webcomics, and Metaphorical Bazookas? Check out http://firework.the-comic.org!

by YeahTommyB4ZGermansGetThere on Dec 25, 2011 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

I'd actually go a step further: it's different in NBA basketball than WNBA basketball than hockey.

We have to remember that in the NBA the shift was not from no Defensive 3 to Defensive 3, but from no zone defense at all to allowing zone with defensive 3 seconds. The defensive 3 secs was sort of a middle ground to preserve what had been in NBA basketball (to allow drives to the basket still) while allowing for a little more strategic flexibility. The effect was just a simpler version of the previous illegal defense rules. NY Times did a good overview here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/sports/basketball/28zone.html

But also, I think we have to say that the way the WNBA and NBA are played makes a huge difference in whether a defensive 3 secs rule would be valuable. The NBA is more of a 1-on-1, isolation league – a defensive three seconds rule allows the league to maintain some of that entertainment value. For the WNBA, would a defensive three seconds rule really encourage more 1-on-1 play? I think most WNBA coaches would tell you that it’s just not the way the women’s game is played and there aren’t a whole lot of WNBA centers just sitting in the lane clogging things up the way a 7’2" Shaq could.

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Dec 26, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

I get that there aren't enough women who are Shaq presences,

but all the players are smaller too, and drives still aren’t going to be easy with a 6’6" center when a guard is 5’10".

I understand that the WNBA and women’s basketball will have different tendencies than NBA and men’s basketball. However, I don’t see any difference between women’s college basketball and the WNBA style of play, except that the WNBA has better overall players and the shot clock is quicker.

Even if the WNBA doesn’t implement the defensive 3 second technical foul for stagnant defenses, the new FIBA length three or even an NBA length three (which has gotta be there to show that the WNBA is a tougher league than college), and the restricted arc will do the vast majority of things I’d like to see in the WNBA, not to mention that without these rules, the WNBA will have a three point line closer than college, and also women’s college basketball and FIBA has the restricted arc. With the NCAA changing a number of rules to include the arc and the three beyond WNBA length, the WNBA has to do something. I’m surprised no one has really pushed for it,

by thewiz06 on Dec 26, 2011 11:33 PM EST up reply actions