Mike Tirico,on the lack of 3-second calls

[upperdeck]

no way---there is a dedicated ref in the arc and paint---3 refs are plenty--they ref in a zone . this is not ref by committee

but the ref is not in the paint he is down off the baseline and he has often 2-3 players in the way to see whats going on down low

 

[RF2044]

Everyone wants to watch players play. No one wants to watch officials ref. So if I can say "Get out of there" a dozen times and the players do it, it's a lot better than even a single "three seconds" call. So you save the call for when it's needed or necessary, and that decision rests with the officials. Period. Basketball is not a democracy.

So I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what more I can tell anyone. It's not so much that officials are told not to call it, rather they're told how to call it, and it involves judgment. Everyone can see the players and the lanes, but no one can see judgment going on in the referee's head. And again, it boils down to advantage/disadvantage. If a player is gaining an advantage, or creating a disadvantage, by doing something against the rules, then the ref has a decision to make. The officials' job is not to ram every last rule in the book down everyone's throat, their job is to make the game fair. And if they relax on something like lane violations both ways, that's fair. And there's just a lot more important things going on during a basketball game than possible lane violations. It's low on the priority list, and that's just the way it is.

Perception is important here, too. Fans, announcers, coaches, players and referees all see things differently. Always have and always will. Just because a Mike Tirico says something doesn't mean he's right. One of the reasons I don't watch NBA is because the announcers often say outrageously silly things about rules, and often say things about a play that happened, when I saw the same play and they're just plain wrong. College ball announcers are often the same, but I love the game so I often watch it with the sound off. Coaches are funny that way, too. Sometimes when a good post player is having a good game, and the opposing team is having trouble trying to stop him, the coach will start with the "He's camping in there!" or, "How long in there?" because if they can influence even one call their way, that might be the difference in a close game. So they try. :noidea:

If an announcer says or even implies that stricter enforcement of lane violations will help clean up physical play in the lane, that doesn't mean he's right. If officials became "three second Nazis" they're not going to turn a Przemek Karnowski into Bambi. Physical play happens all over the floor, not just in the lane and you can't call everything that happens because soon you'll foul everyone out and you won't have a game any more. The reason the focus or emphasis is on lane/low post play is because one way or another the ball's coming in there (especially since the shot clock came along) because that's where the basket is. So you try to protect the ball handler, and especially the shooter, and you live with the rest as long as it's even or fair.

Cowtown, thank you for providing such detailed explanations. It certainly puts a different / insider spin on this type of debate.

My question to you is--it doesn't sit well with me that rules are situationally enforced as you describe. Isn't that exactly what led to the usual suspects[i.e., the Pitinos, the Buzz Williams, the Jamie Dixons, etc.] and other coaches like them turning the game into rock fights in the first place?

I 100% resonate with your point about if advantages are gained or not gained often being the determinant of a whistle, but it seems like some of this stuff could be cleaned up fairly easily if the officials took concerted action, and didn't allow certain teams to get away with fouling 99% of possessions and daring refs to make calls.

Thoughts?

 

[orangecuse]

Everyone wants to watch players play. No one wants to watch officials ref. So if I can say "Get out of there" a dozen times and the players do it, it's a lot better than even a single "three seconds" call. So you save the call for when it's needed or necessary, and that decision rests with the officials. Period. Basketball is not a democracy.

So I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what more I can tell anyone. It's not so much that officials are told not to call it, rather they're told how to call it, and it involves judgment. Everyone can see the players and the lanes, but no one can see judgment going on in the referee's head. And again, it boils down to advantage/disadvantage. If a player is gaining an advantage, or creating a disadvantage, by doing something against the rules, then the ref has a decision to make. The officials' job is not to ram every last rule in the book down everyone's throat, their job is to make the game fair. And if they relax on something like lane violations both ways, that's fair. And there's just a lot more important things going on during a basketball game than possible lane violations. It's low on the priority list, and that's just the way it is.

Perception is important here, too. Fans, announcers, coaches, players and referees all see things differently. Always have and always will. Just because a Mike Tirico says something doesn't mean he's right. One of the reasons I don't watch NBA is because the announcers often say outrageously silly things about rules, and often say things about a play that happened, when I saw the same play and they're just plain wrong. College ball announcers are often the same, but I love the game so I often watch it with the sound off. Coaches are funny that way, too. Sometimes when a good post player is having a good game, and the opposing team is having trouble trying to stop him, the coach will start with the "He's camping in there!" or, "How long in there?" because if they can influence even one call their way, that might be the difference in a close game. So they try. :noidea:

If an announcer says or even implies that stricter enforcement of lane violations will help clean up physical play in the lane, that doesn't mean he's right. If officials became "three second Nazis" they're not going to turn a Przemek Karnowski into Bambi. Physical play happens all over the floor, not just in the lane and you can't call everything that happens because soon you'll foul everyone out and you won't have a game any more. The reason the focus or emphasis is on lane/low post play is because one way or another the ball's coming in there (especially since the shot clock came along) because that's where the basket is. So you try to protect the ball handler, and especially the shooter, and you live with the rest as long as it's even or fair.

Very informative information, thanks for offering.

A game typically (ever) really is decided on a 3 seconds call, so I'm okay with the 'reasoning' that comes down from the world of reffing hierarchy, however, the dilemma I see is that this leaves an official with too much wiggle room when it comes to interpretation, since it appears quite subjective. Though again, a game is rarely ever decided on this call or non type call.

Where it's though is the charge/block call. I realize that this is rather difficult to call due to the pace of the game, etc, but it appears that the refs call this way too much, and, very seldom ever get it right. Announcers are constantly commented on refs for such a bad call more times than not, understandably, the refs don't have the luxury of replay. I think the refs should get a 'referendum' to limit these types of calls, unless it's so obvious or egregious one way or the other, bury the whistle just as with the 3 seconds calls. These notorious block/charge calls have, imo, substantially & negatively impact the game...it has bred the whole flopping phenomenon that doesn't appear to be slowing down any. These calls clearly decide games (we all vividly recall the Duke-SU game where JB was tossed) to the point where the refs are too often the focal point rather than it being the players.

 

[Cowtown]

Very informative information, thanks for offering.

A game typically (ever) really is decided on a 3 seconds call, so I'm okay with the 'reasoning' that comes down from the world of reffing hierarchy, however, the dilemma I see is that this leaves an official with too much wiggle room when it comes to interpretation, since it appears quite subjective. Though again, a game is rarely ever decided on this call or non type call.

Where it's though is the charge/block call. I realize that this is rather difficult to call due to the pace of the game, etc, but it appears that the refs call this way too much, and, very seldom ever get it right. Announcers are constantly commented on refs for such a bad call more times than not, understandably, the refs don't have the luxury of replay. I think the refs should get a 'referendum' to limit these types of calls, unless it's so obvious or egregious one way or the other, bury the whistle just as with the 3 seconds calls. These notorious block/charge calls have, imo, substantially & negatively impact the game...it has bred the whole flopping phenomenon that doesn't appear to be slowing down any. These calls clearly decide games (we all vividly recall the Duke-SU game where JB was tossed) to the point where the refs are too often the focal point rather than it being the players.

Well, here's a thought, it's also the same "wiggle room" that allows the officials to not interfere in a well played game.

Block/charge is an entirely different situation from lane violations. No one gets hurt based on whether a lane violation is called. But players can get seriously hurt in a block/charge situation, even if you get the call right. If you throw out block/charge altogether (as has sometimes been advocated here) you'll have defensive players jumping in front of fast-moving or airborne players all the time, and very soon it would be rugby on a gym floor at best, and fights & brawls at worst.

The problem with block/charge is the concept that the player with the ball must expect to be closely guarded. This means the defender does not have to give "time and distance" (in application, a full step) to the ball handler. This was in conflict with the concept that an airborne player must be allowed a place to land, and the application based on "if you didn't have position before the player leaves the floor, you can't have it after." So the old way was as long as you have established LGP (legal guarding position) before the offensive player leaves the floor, it's a charge or a no-call. But that has led to where we are now - inconsistency, injuries and no one's happy. So now the determination is supposed to be that the defender has to have LGP before the offensive player "commits to leaving the floor." This places more onus on the defender to play better positional defense sooner. But it takes time to get this across to the thousands of officials out there, many of whom spent a lot of time and energy getting the old way right, only now to have to move off the model. And the CJ Fair play at Duke was, to me, a 50/50, and one can easily argue it either way and not be wrong, but that's not a popular position around parts extant. So, simply changing the application of the rule doesn't solve the problem either.

 

[Cowtown]

Cowtown, thank you for providing such detailed explanations. It certainly puts a different / insider spin on this type of debate.

My question to you is--it doesn't sit well with me that rules are situationally enforced as you describe. Isn't that exactly what led to the usual suspects[i.e., the Pitinos, the Buzz Williams, the Jamie Dixons, etc.] and other coaches like them turning the game into rock fights in the first place?

I 100% resonate with your point about if advantages are gained or not gained often being the determinant of a whistle, but it seems like some of this stuff could be cleaned up fairly easily if the officials took concerted action, and didn't allow certain teams to get away with fouling 99% of possessions and daring refs to make calls.

Thoughts?

I've started and deleted a response about three times here, because I don't think I quite get the force of your question. I can, though, say that the whole concept of advantage/disadvantage is not always an easy one to get one's head around. The bad news is that it's the basis for just about everything that happens out there, short of the ball going through the basket, and a player stepping on the sideline. For there will always be contact, but there won't always be a foul. Think of it this way. I had a game last week with a coach who complained that his post player was being held. So I said, "Okay, I'll watch."

Next time up the floor the kid posts up (no ball there yet). The defender leans on him from the ball side, and he says, "See!? He's holding him!"

Next dead ball I said to the coach, "What's he stopping him from doing? First, he's standing still, so he's not stopping him from doing that. Second, he doesn't have the ball, so he's not stopping him from going to the basket. Tell him to move so I can see if there's disadvantage."

And I hate reffing the rock fights, but honestly I can't end them by myself. There's a standard across the association that says you have to find a way to get through the game. Becoming the whistle Nazi does not solve the problem. So, I have to conform. Think of it this way. If the speed limit says 50, and I'm doing 50 while everyone else on the road is doing 70, who's causing the problem?

 

[orangecuse]

Well, here's a thought, it's also the same "wiggle room" that allows the officials to not interfere in a well played game.

Block/charge is an entirely different situation from lane violations. No one gets hurt based on whether a lane violation is called. But players can get seriously hurt in a block/charge situation, even if you get the call right. If you throw out block/charge altogether (as has sometimes been advocated here) you'll have defensive players jumping in front of fast-moving or airborne players all the time, and very soon it would be rugby on a gym floor at best, and fights & brawls at worst.

The problem with block/charge is the concept that the player with the ball must expect to be closely guarded. This means the defender does not have to give "time and distance" (in application, a full step) to the ball handler. This was in conflict with the concept that an airborne player must be allowed a place to land, and the application based on "if you didn't have position before the player leaves the floor, you can't have it after." So the old way was as long as you have established LGP (legal guarding position) before the offensive player leaves the floor, it's a charge or a no-call. But that has led to where we are now - inconsistency, injuries and no one's happy. So now the determination is supposed to be that the defender has to have LGP before the offensive player "commits to leaving the floor." This places more onus on the defender to play better positional defense sooner. But it takes time to get this across to the thousands of officials out there, many of whom spent a lot of time and energy getting the old way right, only now to have to move off the model. And the CJ Fair play at Duke was, to me, a 50/50, and one can easily argue it either way and not be wrong, but that's not a popular position around parts extant. So, simply changing the application of the rule doesn't solve the problem either.

I think that's a rather extreme viewpoint relative to the injury issue. More times than not these charges/blocks don't involve injury, at least an injury that would be deemed serious. Maybe the wind knocked out of you, or an impact that after a few seconds quickly dissipates, etc. Most of these calls happen when a defender is closely defending the ball handler and attempts to just slide his feet or body in position abruptly (and then a good acting job as if was violent) in hope of getting the call.
The current model you described is nothing more than the old school model years ago and before these calls became problematic and out of hand. The ref hierarchy should've never changed it and followed the 'ol premise, if it isn't broke don't fix it., etc.

Your 50/50 viewpoint, with all due respect, is the problem. It should never be 50/50, it should be at minimum 80/20 or the no-call. That call was the typical/usual charge/block call, where both any chance of injury was none/very nil, and the impact and changing of the game's outcome was substantial.

 

[RF2044]

I'm out the door to play hockey, hold the thought until I get back in a couple hours.

Looking forward to your reply!

Also, I didn't include this above, but I'd love to get your perspective on high moving screens, as well. Seems so situationally / selectively called and enforced...

Major pet peeve of mine vis a vis how college games are officiated.

 

[Cowtown]

It should never be 50/50, it should be at minimum 80/20 or the no-call.

Yeah, I wish they were all that easy, too.

 

[orangecuse]

Yeah, I wish they were all that easy, too.

Again, that's the point...if it's not that clear, easy, etc., swallow the whistle and don't make a call. As I mentioned, the impact those highly questionable calls have on the game's outcome is just too influential. Just my humble opinion, as again, I realize it's difficult.

 

[pulaski74]

Well, here's a thought, it's also the same "wiggle room" that allows the officials to not interfere in a well played game.

Block/charge is an entirely different situation from lane violations. No one gets hurt based on whether a lane violation is called. But players can get seriously hurt in a block/charge situation, even if you get the call right. If you throw out block/charge altogether (as has sometimes been advocated here) you'll have defensive players jumping in front of fast-moving or airborne players all the time, and very soon it would be rugby on a gym floor at best, and fights & brawls at worst.

The problem with block/charge is the concept that the player with the ball must expect to be closely guarded. This means the defender does not have to give "time and distance" (in application, a full step) to the ball handler. This was in conflict with the concept that an airborne player must be allowed a place to land, and the application based on "if you didn't have position before the player leaves the floor, you can't have it after." So the old way was as long as you have established LGP (legal guarding position) before the offensive player leaves the floor, it's a charge or a no-call. But that has led to where we are now - inconsistency, injuries and no one's happy. So now the determination is supposed to be that the defender has to have LGP before the offensive player "commits to leaving the floor." This places more onus on the defender to play better positional defense sooner. But it takes time to get this across to the thousands of officials out there, many of whom spent a lot of time and energy getting the old way right, only now to have to move off the model. And the CJ Fair play at Duke was, to me, a 50/50, and one can easily argue it either way and not be wrong, but that's not a popular position around parts extant. So, simply changing the application of the rule doesn't solve the problem either.

I think it's simple, no verticle space crap, if you are not trying to make a play on the BASKETBALL, it's a block.

 

[Cowtown]

I think it's simple, no verticle space crap, if you are not trying to make a play on the BASKETBALL, it's a block.

That's not what the rule book says. Every player is entitled to the cylinder above him all the way to the ceiling. And attacking/slapping the ball is not defense. Defense is defending your basket. Period. If you reach outside the cylinder for the ball, you foul out a lot. I coached enough years to know the difference. It's amazing how many people haven't figured out that blocking shots is not good defense, rather it's the result of poor defense.

 

[tipphill]

but the ref is not in the paint he is down off the baseline and he has often 2-3 players in the way to see whats going on down low

shocking to hear that!!! i guess thats why they need to be in shape so they move with flow---ya think???

 

[NYCSUGrad]

That's not what the rule book says. Every player is entitled to the cylinder above him all the way to the ceiling. And attacking/slapping the ball is not defense. Defense is defending your basket. Period. If you reach outside that for the ball, you foul out a lot. I coached enough years to know the difference. It's amazing how many people haven't figured out that blocking shots is not good defense, rather it's the result of poor defense.

I do not understand this post.

 

[NYCorange]

That's not what the rule book says. Every player is entitled to the cylinder above him all the way to the ceiling. And attacking/slapping the ball is not defense. Defense is defending your basket. Period. If you reach outside that for the ball, you foul out a lot. I coached enough years to know the difference. It's amazing how many people haven't figured out that blocking shots is not good defense, rather it's the result of poor defense.

YES! Thank you. That's what makes Hasan Whiteside a REALLY poor defender, and makes Draymond Green an absolutely amazing defender (although he does get his share of blocks).

Again, I've really appreciated your insight. About the going 50 in a 50 MPH zone when everyone's going 70. example. If I'm the policeman (or ref), unless it's been communicated to me by higher ups that we want to explicitly let people go 70, I'd think it's my responsibility is to pull a few guys over for going 70 so that the rest of the crowd goes 50 (or 55). In other words, as a ref, if one team (Williams' Marquette, for example) is mugging the other team, isn't it the refs responsibility to call as many fouls as necessary until the other team gets the message (assuming, of course that the fouls are giving the offending team an advantage)? It would seem strange to say to the team being mugged "hey, you need to start mugging back because as you can see, I'm not going to call a foul". Again, that's assuming that the mugging is actually play altering.

 

[NYCorange]

I do not understand this post.

A blocked shot is a good outcome, but is not usually the result of good defense (though sometimes they are). Blocked shots often come after a defensive breakdown (think of a chasedown block in transition, or a Dwight Howard blocking a offensive player who beat his defender on defense). Roy Hibbert, when he played for the Pacers against the Heat totally dominated on D because if a player drove into the lane, he ran an established legal guarding position (as if he was going to take a charge), and then jumped straight up into the air with both arms straight up as high as possible. The opposing player would run into him, and had a VERY difficult time getting a shot up over/around him because he was so big. Even though there was a lot of contact, because Hibbert stayed in his vertical space and didn't reach for the block (out of his vertical space) the officials couldn't call a foul on him because he had legal position--all the contact was created by the offensive player. The second play in the clip here shows that well. The contact is so violent that the officials actually call a charge on Lebron.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

A blocked shot is a good outcome, but is not usually the result of good defense (though sometimes they are). Blocked shots often come after a defensive breakdown (think of a chasedown block in transition, or a Dwight Howard blocking a offensive player who beat his defender on defense). Roy Hibbert, when he played for the Pacers against the Heat totally dominated on D because if a player drove into the lane, he ran an established legal guarding position (as if he was going to take a charge), and then jumped straight up into the air with both arms straight up as high as possible. The opposing player would run into him, and had a VERY difficult time getting a shot up over/around him because he was so big. Even though there was a lot of contact, because Hibbert stayed in his vertical space and didn't reach for the block (out of his vertical space) the officials couldn't call a foul on him because he had legal position--all the contact was created by the offensive player. The second play in the clip here shows that well. The contact is so violent that the officials actually call a charge on Lebron.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[upperdeck]

not sure a blocked shot is bad defense , if it is the best defensive player in the history if the NBA was have been awful. if you design a D that is so committed to stopping every pass then it will fail because it cant play help defense too. you cant take away every pass so you have to be able to stop the dribble too and then the pass/shot options. a blocked shot that goes out of bounds is usually a bad fundamental in positioning by the D, the block itself not so much. if people would learn how to jump off either foot and block with either hand many of the block shots that dont result in the ball staying with your team would go away.

 

[orangecuse]

not sure a blocked shot is bad defense , if it is the best defensive player in the history if the NBA was have been awful. if you design a D that is so committed to stopping every pass then it will fail because it cant play help defense too. you cant take away every pass so you have to be able to stop the dribble too and then the pass/shot options. a blocked shot that goes out of bounds is usually a bad fundamental in positioning by the D, the block itself not so much. if people would learn how to jump off either foot and block with either hand many of the block shots that dont result in the ball staying with your team would go away.

Yeah, I'm not convinced either that a blocked shot unequivocally equates to bad defense. It may, but not universally. An example can be a defense that is playing aggressive, etc. to entice/lure an offense into the belief it had a good opportunity to score inside only to have their sultan of swat to take that out of there...with the ensuing result of a possible fast break opportunity in the other direction.

 

[pulaski74]

That's not what the rule book says. Every player is entitled to the cylinder above him all the way to the ceiling. And attacking/slapping the ball is not defense. Defense is defending your basket. Period. If you reach outside that for the ball, you foul out a lot. I coached enough years to know the difference. It's amazing how many people haven't figured out that blocking shots is not good defense, rather it's the result of poor defense.

just saying it would simplify the call and wish they would change the rule, it's a judgement call and I hate that, much like pass interference in the nfl, replay shows what?

 

[sendithome]

I can understand warning(s) and not doing anything if it isn't impacting the game (coaches/players haven't complained). If a player is guilty of any infraction continuously (three seconds, carrying the ball, grabbing off the ball, arm bar while defending, sliding pivot foot, moving screens, etc.), calling it two times quickly on that player sends an effective message to the player and coach. For the turnover violations, the availability of the player in the game is only impacted by the coach's willingness to keep giving the other team the ball.

Why is there talk about widening the lane due to the physicality in the lane? It seems like an expensive solution to solve something that is already addressed in the rule book.

Everyone wants to watch players play. No one wants to watch officials ref. So if I can say "Get out of there" a dozen times and the players do it, it's a lot better than even a single "three seconds" call. So you save the call for when it's needed or necessary, and that decision rests with the officials. Period. Basketball is not a democracy.

So I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what more I can tell anyone. It's not so much that officials are told not to call it, rather they're told how to call it, and it involves judgment. Everyone can see the players and the lanes, but no one can see judgment going on in the referee's head. And again, it boils down to advantage/disadvantage. If a player is gaining an advantage, or creating a disadvantage, by doing something against the rules, then the ref has a decision to make. The officials' job is not to ram every last rule in the book down everyone's throat, their job is to make the game fair. And if they relax on something like lane violations both ways, that's fair. And there's just a lot more important things going on during a basketball game than possible lane violations. It's low on the priority list, and that's just the way it is.

Perception is important here, too. Fans, announcers, coaches, players and referees all see things differently. Always have and always will. Just because a Mike Tirico says something doesn't mean he's right. One of the reasons I don't watch NBA is because the announcers often say outrageously silly things about rules, and often say things about a play that happened, when I saw the same play and they're just plain wrong. College ball announcers are often the same, but I love the game so I often watch it with the sound off. Coaches are funny that way, too. Sometimes when a good post player is having a good game, and the opposing team is having trouble trying to stop him, the coach will start with the "He's camping in there!" or, "How long in there?" because if they can influence even one call their way, that might be the difference in a close game. So they try. :noidea:

If an announcer says or even implies that stricter enforcement of lane violations will help clean up physical play in the lane, that doesn't mean he's right. If officials became "three second Nazis" they're not going to turn a Przemek Karnowski into Bambi. Physical play happens all over the floor, not just in the lane and you can't call everything that happens because soon you'll foul everyone out and you won't have a game any more. The reason the focus or emphasis is on lane/low post play is because one way or another the ball's coming in there (especially since the shot clock came along) because that's where the basket is. So you try to protect the ball handler, and especially the shooter, and you live with the rest as long as it's even or fair.

 

[NYCorange]

not sure a blocked shot is bad defense , if it is the best defensive player in the history if the NBA was have been awful. if you design a D that is so committed to stopping every pass then it will fail because it cant play help defense too. you cant take away every pass so you have to be able to stop the dribble too and then the pass/shot options. a blocked shot that goes out of bounds is usually a bad fundamental in positioning by the D, the block itself not so much. if people would learn how to jump off either foot and block with either hand many of the block shots that dont result in the ball staying with your team would go away.

Yeah, I'm not convinced either that a blocked shot unequivocally equates to bad defense. It may, but not universally. An example can be a defense that is playing aggressive, etc. to entice/lure an offense into the belief it had a good opportunity to score inside only to have their sultan of swat to take that out of there...with the ensuing result of a possible fast break opportunity in the other direction.

I think that orangecuse's example is a good one of how a blocked shot can be a result of good defense. I'm not trying to say that actually blocking a shot is bad defense-- a block is certainly a good defensive play. But the sequence of events that leads to a blocked shot often (but not always) includes bad defense either on the part of the person blocking the shot, or on the part of the defender who got beat. And even the decision to attempt block a shot can be a poor one. Hasan Whiteside leads the league in blocked shots by a very wide margin, and also is 5th in the league in rebounding, but somehow his team plays better defense and grabs a higher percentage of opponent misses (defensive rebounding) when he's on the bench. Why is that? It's because he attempts to block literally every shot in the paint, and leaves his man to do so. Sure, he gets some blocks, but he also leaves his man wide open, to either get the rebound or to receive the pass when the person he thinks is going to shoot actually doesn't. He also fouls a lot because he's so agressively swinging his arms at the ball instead of contesting shots. Some players block shots within the context of the team defense--Tim Duncan is a great example of that. Those are outstanding plays. Others block shots like Allen Iverson gambled for steals. Sure, a steal is an unequivocally good play, but the decision to go for a steal is often NOT a good decision.

 

[Cowtown]

I can understand warning(s) and not doing anything if it isn't impacting the game (coaches/players haven't complained). If a player is guilty of any infraction continuously (three seconds, carrying the ball, grabbing off the ball, arm bar while defending, sliding pivot foot, moving screens, etc.), calling it two times quickly on that player sends an effective message to the player and coach. For the turnover violations, the availability of the player in the game is only impacted by the coach's willingness to keep giving the other team the ball.

Why is there talk about widening the lane due to the physicality in the lane? It seems like an expensive solution to solve something that is already addressed in the rule book.

1,) Because it's not always the same player, so each play is different, and there are more important things to keep track of.

2,) The game evolves, and so do the players. The "three seconds" rule was introduced in the 1930's in part because it was thought the game was getting too rough near the basket (sound familiar? ). Some time after that the lane was widened, and then the NBA widened it even more as taller players became more prominent, and smaller players adjusted by becoming more skilled. The point is that the game has been around a long time and wsn't always played the way it was when you saw it for the first time. At one time there were only thirteen rules and nine players a side, you could only pass the ball (read: you couldn't dribble).

http://hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History

Some of the high schools where I live have the NBA width lane because FIBA is migrating that way from the trapezoid-shaped lane. We've used it in several tournaments and play is noticeably cleaner, faster and better. That's because it places more of a premium on movement and timing, and sheer physical size is less of an advantage.

Have you noticed in the NCAA that free throw line-ups no longer use the lower space?

Here's something I bet nobody here knows. When the "back door lob" play became popular in the US, other players around the world began trying to do it, but didn't know how do do it properly. So FIBA outlawed the play for several years to prevent players from getting hurt. Then after coaches and players learned the correct way to make that play, the rule was removed.

Both the players and the game evolve. And so must the officials.

 

[Cowtown]

I think that orangecuse's example is a good one of how a blocked shot can be a result of good defense. I'm not trying to say that actually blocking a shot is bad defense-- a block is certainly a good defensive play. But the sequence of events that leads to a blocked shot often (but not always) includes bad defense either on the part of the person blocking the shot, or on the part of the defender who got beat. And even the decision to attempt block a shot can be a poor one. Hasan Whiteside leads the league in blocked shots by a very wide margin, and also is 5th in the league in rebounding, but somehow his team plays better defense and grabs a higher percentage of opponent misses (defensive rebounding) when he's on the bench. Why is that? It's because he attempts to block literally every shot in the paint, and leaves his man to do so. Sure, he gets some blocks, but he also leaves his man wide open, to either get the rebound or to receive the pass when the person he thinks is going to shoot actually doesn't. He also fouls a lot because he's so agressively swinging his arms at the ball instead of contesting shots. Some players block shots within the context of the team defense--Tim Duncan is a great example of that. Those are outstanding plays. Others block shots like Allen Iverson gambled for steals. Sure, a steal is an unequivocally good play, but the decision to go for a steal is often NOT a good decision.

Somebody gets it. If you find you're having to block a lot of shots, you need to play better defense sooner, both away from the ball - before your man gets it, and as well, after he gets it.

 

[OttoMets]

...

Both the players and the game evolve. And so must the officials.

Here's where the two sides look like two ships in the night on this matter.

Obviously what you say is true.

But the rules have not evolved to the extent that you suggest. Your contention is that powers-that-be have told officials to disregard the rules as written and use their discretion. We observe that the game is far more physical and also sloppier than it was even 15 years ago. I believe that this is caused by looser officiating (and I'm not looking to scapegoat officials for this).

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.

The game's evolved, sure. But if Those Who Run Basketball don't want the rulebook to be enforced as it long has been, maybe the rulebook should evolve to reflect this and we can be more honest about what the game has become.

 

[Cowtown]

Here's where the two sides look like two ships in the night on this matter.

Obviously what you say is true.

But the rules have not evolved to the extent that you suggest. Your contention is that powers-that-be have told officials to disregard the rules as written and use their discretion. We observe that the game is far more physical and also sloppier than it was even 15 years ago. I believe that this is caused by looser officiating (and I'm not looking to scapegoat officials for this).

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.

The game's evolved, sure. But if Those Who Run Basketball don't want the rulebook to be enforced as it long has been, maybe the rulebook should evolve to reflect this and we can be more honest about what the game has become.

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!