Rule Changes the NBA Still Needs to Consider

The NBA changed a couple rules this offseason, giving head coaches a second in-game challenge if they win the first and giving referees the power to assess technical fouls for flopping.

Both adjustments make plenty of sense, and the latter is at least an attempt to address one of the biggest issues plaguing the league.

But there's always room for more improvement. The television product could be improved by minor tweaks, and certain plays that can lead to injuries or unnecessary stoppages could be eliminated or more aggressively punished.

In general, NBA games can still get better by way of some simple rule changes. And below, you'll find good places to start.

NBA referees have a nightmarishly hard job. They intermittently run up and down a hardwood floor for two-plus hours while trying to keep up with the world's greatest athletes and spotting infractions of an often intricate rulebook.

Layer on top of that the fact that many of the game's best players are now actively trying to fool them throughout the game (more on that later), and it's hard to envy the task before these women and men.

Knowing how difficult the job is, the NBA should be interested in eliminating some of the bang-bang judgment calls that really aren't necessary.

One is goaltending, and basketball's international governing body, FIBA, handles those plays better than the league.

In FIBA play, defenders still aren't allowed to deflect a mid-flight ball on its way down to the hoop, but once it touches the rim, it's fair game. In other words, players from either team could swipe it off the rim or tip it in as soon as it makes contact.

When you read the rule, it sounds like it's inviting chaos. But when you actually watch some FIBA games, you find that it doesn't impact a ton of individual possessions.

And even if the additional size and athleticism that may be present in most NBA games would increase the likelihood of more balls on the rim getting played, that's not enough of a drawback to outweigh the upside.

Fewer goaltending calls would mean a little better flow in the game, fewer stoppages and perhaps most importantly, fewer replay reviews.

Soccer and basketball share some common ground. Two opposing teams use ball-handling and passing to move up and down a rectangular playing surface while attacking or defending goals on either end.

Beyond the fact that one game is played primarily with feet, while the other expressly outlaws kicking the ball, the next biggest difference may be the way the two contests flow.

In professional soccer, there are no timeouts. The clock doesn't even stop when the ball goes out of bounds or a foul is called. That leads to a continuous, mostly uninterrupted flow of action for 90 minutes (plus stoppage time).

Of course, fully embracing that doesn't really make sense for basketball after about the sixth grade, but the NBA is definitely leaning too far the other direction.

In an NBA game, each team has seven timeouts. That's potentially 14 stoppages over the course of a 48-minute game that already includes a 15-minute halftime, breaks in between quarters and TV timeouts that the teams don't even call.

There are some real benefits to all those stoppages, including rest, advertising revenue and the ability to strategize on the fly, but all of that isn't worth the degree to which the product is bogged down.

With the exception of a few players in leagues around the world, the NBA generally features the 450-500 best basketball players in the world. They can prepare and communicate enough with coaches to be able to make adjustments without sitting down to talk about it. Bench players can log another minute or two during a game to offset the lost rest.

Cutting the number of team-called timeouts down to three or four per team would absolutely improve the flow.

This is anecdotal, to be sure, but the most common complaint I hear from casual fans (or would-be fans) of the NBA has to do with flopping. And on that front, it's tough to blame the complainers.

Flopping has been rampant for years. And while the league should be credited for taking some necessary steps to curb the problem (like last year's emphasis on unnatural movements and this summer's rule change giving refs the ability to T up a flopper), eliminating it entirely may require a harsher approach.

That's how ingrained the practice has become, particularly among some of the game's biggest stars.

Beyond the incoming technical fouls, the league needs to start assessing flopping fines more liberally. There should be a flopping tech counter that leads to multi-game suspensions. Postgame reviews by the league office could be used to levy additional penalties for particularly egregious flops.

This isn't a hyper-specific suggestion, but some or all of the above would have a real impact on players' pocketbooks and potentially their win-loss record. And that's how the league can truly deter behavior that has slowed the game down, turned off a number of fans and in some cases, led to some pretty dangerous plays.

Of course, you might be thinking that a bunch of new penalties for flopping could also mean more time for officials standing at the scorer's table to watch replays.

Rest assured, this wave of rule changes would address that too.

The three referees who are physically on the floor should never review replays for the game they're officiating.

It takes too much time. It opens the officials up to more vitriol than they already face. Coaches, players and fans get mad when they perceive a missed call. They can get furious if they think a missed call was upheld after a replay review. It also invites a human who doesn't need to be present.

The league's refs are trying their best to be impartial in enforcing the rule book, but there may be an implicit desire to look for justifications of a call that's already been made. I certainly wouldn't accuse a ref of doing that intentionally (and the number of calls that have been overturned over the years suggests they don't), but there could at least be the perception of that approach from fans.

Instead of dealing with all of that, the league should employ a handful of offsite referees who are stationed at the Replay Center in New Jersey (or it could rotate current referees into that role) to make everyone of those review-worthy calls on the fly.

Give the officials on the floor an earpiece. Feed them the answer they need as quickly as possible and move on with the game.

Take some of the burden of that game's referees and improve the flow.

This is the trickiest one to pursue. And at least once a year, the idea of banning the block-charge play (or "taking" a charge) ignites some kind of furious debate on social media.

There are good arguments on both sides, but it's hard to watch a defender leave one spot, run to another, get in the driving lane of a committed player and cause an often nasty collision that results in a turnover and think that's in keeping with the spirit of the game.

Yes, there has to be some form of offensive fouls. Drivers can't just truck defenders, wield their off arm like a club (ahem, Paul George) or otherwise steamroll defenders, but "taking" a charge is almost always the fault of the defender. He's the one initiating the contact. And he may be doing so at the expense of the offensive player's knees, ankles or some other body part that might be injured by being undercut.

The counter, of course, is that offensive players already have too many advantages. They should be able to stop and hit a pull-up or otherwise avoid the contact. But just imagine how annoyed you'd be with a traffic ticket for hitting a cone that was chucked in front of your car at the last minute.

Of course, changing this one is a lot easier said than done. Coaches at all levels have been teaching players to throw themselves into oncoming basketball traffic for decades. It's more ingrained in the game than flopping.

Perhaps the league should expand the restricted area a bit (the half circle under the rim where charges aren't allowed to be taken). It could also change the time for a defender to establish his legal guarding position from "before [the offensive player] starts his upward shooting motion" to "before he starts to gather his dribble."

Those tweaks might not fit with the unofficial theme of wanting to make life easier on refs in the short term, but if they eventually led to fewer players attempting to "take" charges, they could certainly help in the long term.

This is another play type that generates unnecessary stoppages, reviews and injuries.

There are plenty of high-profile success stories from the NBA's prep-to-pros era, including Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, but there are many examples like Robert Swift, Kwame Brown and Sebastian Telfair too.

In theory, requiring players to wait a year between high school and the NBA would help prospects mature a bit before making the leap.

But really, how much different is an 18-year old from a 19-year old? And for those players who are ready to make the leap right out of high school, what's the point of the gap year?

Since the league instituted its current age requirements, prospects have found all kinds of ways to spend the time. LaMelo Ball played in Australia. Darius Bazley was an intern with New Balance. Scoot Henderson played in the G League.

Heck, even the one-and-done college players were essentially just killing time between high school and their ultimate basketball destiny. Their handful of months at various college programs contributed to the lack of continuity we see in college basketball today.

The fallout the NCAA had to deal with isn't really the NBA's responsibility, but at this point, the league needs to seriously assess the benefits of this rule for itself and its players.

Wouldn't most of these prospects benefit more from a year's worth of professional coaching, training and nutrition programs than a few months in a dorm?

Yes, plenty of players would miscalculate and wash out of the league entirely, but a solitary year in college probably isn't going to change that for anyone.