Mike Tirico,on the lack of 3-second calls

[OttoMets]

...And I don't agree that rules are disregarded. ...

Oy. I'm not looking for an argument here, but you're not consistent on these things. I appreciate the officiating insight as always, but you always seem to be defending rather than conceding when valid criticisms are brought up - even when you've painted yourself into a contradiction.

"Section 9. Three Seconds In The Lane
...
Art. 2.
It is a violation for a player to have any part of his body remain in the
three-second lane for more than three consecutive seconds while the ball is in
control of that player’s team in his frontcourt."

... It's not that the refs don't see it, it's that they choose not to make that call. ...

 

[pulaski74]

Rules have not evolved as much as I think? When I played in HS and in college, there was no 3 point line nor shot clock. Those are huge changes, and they made the game better. Did you look at the link? For a real hoot, read the part about boundaries. It must have been like a keystone cops movie. And I don't agree that rules are disregarded. Rather, there's an evolution not only in the rules themselves, but also how they're interpreted and applied. Block charge is a prime example, it used to be you had to be stationary to draw a charge. That implied you play defense standing still, and no coach I know will ever agree to that. So the interpretation and application was changed to where once you establish LGP, you can move to maintain it.

Another problem with "the rulebook" is that there's more than one. Just listen to some of the BS Charles Barkley says when he's on the NCAA March Madness broadcasts, LOL!

So , you are saying that 3 seconds in the lane against a zone defense should not be called? Do referees not know what defense is being played? Not playing hardball here but the top of the paint is one key to beating a zone.

 

[Cowtown]

Oy. I'm not looking for an argument here, but you're not consistent on these things. I appreciate the officiating insight as always, but you always seem to be defending rather than conceding when valid criticisms are brought up - even when you've painted yourself into a contradiction.

"Section 9. Three Seconds In The Lane
...
Art. 2.
It is a violation for a player to have any part of his body remain in the
three-second lane for more than three consecutive seconds while the ball is in
control of that player’s team in his frontcourt."

Fine. By literal interpretation of the rule, dunking is offensive goaltending. I lived through the time when it was enforced that way, and the game suffered for it.

Here's a possible solution to your dilemma: go sit in the front row at a local game and yell "Three seconds!" every time you think it should be called. Better yet, become a referee and enforce the "three seconds" call as literally as you think it should be. In either case, you'll become a caricature. Your issue is that you want the three second rule enforced literally, and you're not happy when it's not. Fine. Be unhappy. :noidea:

 

[Cowtown]

So , you are saying that 3 seconds in the lane against a zone defense should not be called?

Where in the world did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.

 

[OttoMets]

Fine. By literal interpretation of the rule, dunking is offensive goaltending. I lived through the time when it was enforced that way, and the game suffered for it.

Here's a possible solution to your dilemma: go sit in the front row at a local game and yell "Three seconds!" every time you think it should be called. Better yet, become a referee and enforce the "three seconds" call as literally as you think it should be. In either case, you'll become a caricature. Your issue is that you want the three second rule enforced literally, and you're not happy when it's not. Fine. Be unhappy. :noidea:

No, Mr. Strawman, three seconds isn't a peeve of mine. Some of us have been trying to reach an understanding on the subject of inconsistent officiating and I chimed in to a thread about this specific perceived problem.

Honestly, you're a good poster and obviously a bright guy. This could be a constructive thread, but your responses to criticism of officiating seem to muddle things further.

 

[pulaski74]

Where in the world did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.

Well just reading your post's brother.

 

[Cowtown]

No, Mr. Strawman, three seconds isn't a peeve of mine. Some of us have been trying to reach an understanding on the subject of inconsistent officiating and I chimed in to a thread about this specific perceived problem.

Honestly, you're a good poster and obviously a bright guy. This could be a constructive thread, but your responses to criticism of officiating seem to muddle things further.

Fine. Have it your way.

 

[Dave85]

We see teams use moving picks as a matter of strategy, post players dipping and using a shoulder to dislodge a defender with legal guarding position, hard contact on dunks and layups, players taking a dive when an offensive player approaches (among other things; obviously the last of those can be very difficult to perceive in real time). There's little consistency in whether there's a whistle on these types of plays.

And the traditional no-call Duke travel play as a Duke player clearly takes three steps to complete a final second shot to win a game. You just can't count the number of no-call Duke travel plays that have occurred over the years.

 

[OttoMets]

And the traditional no-call Duke travel play as a Duke player clearly takes three steps to complete a final second shot to win a game. You just can't count the number of no-call Duke travel plays that have occurred over the years.

Actually, I was reminded of an even more esoteric officiating blind spot when looking up the language of the three-second violation (they're on the same page): jump ball interference.

I think we see a violation on this one roughly 100% of the time; calling it a few times would discourage violations and wouldn't have any negative effect on fans' alleged desire to see players play the game. This one bugs the heck out of me because it should be so easy to enforce and we've seen such marked disregard for the rule. Both players attack the ball before its apex at the start of nearly every game.

 

[upperdeck]

I would like to know how a jump ball is now called on what used to be called up and down.. how can you get a tie up on a block in mid air when by rule there is no possession unless you are on the ground? reward the D for a good play not the possession arrow.