|
Post by grokamok on Mar 25, 2008 15:55:58 GMT -5
The rules make the game. Basketball, football, tennis, chess - it doesn't matter. The purpose of playing a game (in addition to having fun) is to determine who plays the game better *within those rules*, not simply who is a superior physical specimen.
Officials are there in organized sports to enforce the rules. How many here have played a game at Yates with someone who blatantly plays outside the rules? How much fun was it? Do you think the outcome of such games really demonstrated who was better at the game, or just who was willing to break enough rules to make sure they won (whether or not they were expected to be better based purely on athletic ability)? Sure, you could call all the carries on poorly attempted cross-overs, walks on poorly attempted jump-stops, hacks on attempted steals, pushes in the back on attempted rebounds, charges on attempted drives and push-offs on attempts to get a clear look at the basket but the disruption of doing so would make you personna non-grata right quick, even amongst your own teammates. By enforcing the rules in more meaningful competition, officials take such playground junk away and provide a more just playing field - *if* they enforce the rules evenly, that is.
Now, officials do not have a God's-eye view of things. They can only call what they see (or think they see). An official or officiating crew may tend to look for certain things or err more to one side or the other (calling a game tight or loose) but as long as they do the same both ways, it is not right to suggest that they are biased just because that style of calling a game tends to favor the playing style of one team over another. Just as the foul on Villanova at the end of the game was a foul and should have been called whether there was 0.1 seconds left or 0.1 seconds passed, a "touch" foul on Roy should have been called if he hit a player's arm during a shot whether it affected the result or not. A foul is something outside the rules and, as such, players should simply not be allowed to do this in organized competition.
Additional training of officials is a great idea. It would, presumably, lead to more consistent and more even calls (and, perhaps, smaller spare tires). Expecting that there be no variation in game interpretation among officials or officiating crews is asking too much, though. Such variation is part of the human condition, and preparation for and adjustment to this variation must be part of a team's game plan. Perhaps, in the future, automated referees may be created that would vastly reduce such variation but I won't hold my breath for their arrival.
Every time a rule is changed, it changes the game to one degree or another. The introduction of the shot-clock and three-point line, the widening of the lane, the three-second rule and goal-tending, the outlawing and re-introduction of the dunk, the five-second closely-guarded rule and alternating possessions on jump balls, the change from indefinite one-and-one opportunities to two shots on fouls past the 9th - each of these made certain styles of play more or less effective. Personally, I am against each of these rule changes (with the possible exception of the lane, three-second and goal-tending rules) as I view them as counter to effective competition and the basic premise of the game: getting the ball in the basket and keeping your opponent from doing so. One could go back further - the introduction of free throws and the dribble, etc. - but such rules are so fundamental to the current playing of the game that I would have a very hard time with a reversion.
My personal opinion aside, the current rules represent a particular game. If personal fouls were unlimited, it would, as RDF noted, fundamentally change the playing and strategy of the game. The danger of fouling out is a far greater deterrent for the best players than the occasional free-throw given up. If one had to allow for unlimited fouls, the penalty for fouling would have to be greater to keep the expected payoff of fouling down - say a free-throw and possession, instead of just possession for non-shooting fouls, two and possession for shooting fouls on missed shots, and possession for shooting fouls on made shots; there would be no defensive rebounding of missed free-throws. One of the reasons there is no need for offensive linemen to foul out of a football game is that the penalties for their infractions are, typically, enough to limit their tendency to commit them. Similarly, NBA-type rules, such as the block/charge arc and, until recently, "illegal" defense are meant more to market the game to the mass of fans, who presumably enjoy individual offensive showcasing over team play and solid defense. I hope that any further adoption of such rules does not come to pass in the college ranks.
|
|
Eurostar
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by Eurostar on Mar 25, 2008 17:51:59 GMT -5
It is also the reason why officials have more power in basketball than any other sport. They can remove players from the game arbitrarily and permanently. Well, there is this one other sport, I don't know if you've ever heard of it, called soccer or football or something. Seems to be pretty popular in the barbarian spaces outside our borders. They seem to have a similar thing going on with ejecting players for fouls, although at least there you get a nice colored card for your efforts ;D Granted, fouling out happens far more than ejections in soccer, but it's also the case that yellow cards catch up to you over multiple games, so if you get one in two consecutive games, you're inelligible for the third one (in World Cup and Euro Champ. play, anyway). And that does happen much more than, say, the NBA's rule on amassing X number of technicals over a season. actually russky, thats a poor analogy because there are essentially 2 grades of fouls in soccer. one where the other team just gets a free kick, and then more flagrant penalty where the player gets a card and can essentially foul out. you can get as many regular fouls as you want - the team will just keep getting free kicks.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 25, 2008 18:10:42 GMT -5
I like the free kick analogy. That's what basketball is missing. Some kind of intermediate between turning into a blood sport (as some people here seem to think it would--I'm imagining some awesome violence on the floor) and tossing teams' best, often biggest and most dominant players from the game.
Imagine if after walking 5 batters, a pitcher got tossed. It's kind of ridiculous.
But overall, the reffing situation has to change SOMEHOW. The game gets slowed, it's hard to watch. It's hard for teams to get into, and worst of all: it's inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by drjimcooper on Mar 25, 2008 18:39:21 GMT -5
I think something along the lines of the Vitale's suggestion could make sense. At the same time, the point would be moot if referees were consistent in what they called a foul. Instead of fundamentally changing the rules to allow unlimited fouling, my suggestion would be to simply err on the side of not calling fouls when no advantage is gained. I was watching the Sixers v. Boston last night, and what struck me was how much physical play and in some cases pushing would go uncalled. The thing is, though, that the referees allowed both teams to have the same amount of leeway. Some might argue that in college this would simply make it impossible for smaller, less athletic teams to compete and that pro players are more uniformly athletic, etc. However, is it really fair to give a team that is clearly outmatched such a huge advantage by, i.e. fouling out the better team's center?
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 25, 2008 23:17:59 GMT -5
The rules make the game. Basketball, football, tennis, chess - it doesn't matter. The purpose of playing a game (in addition to having fun) is to determine who plays the game better *within those rules*, not simply who is a superior physical specimen. Officials are there in organized sports to enforce the rules. How many here have played a game at Yates with someone who blatantly plays outside the rules? How much fun was it? Do you think the outcome of such games really demonstrated who was better at the game, or just who was willing to break enough rules to make sure they won (whether or not they were expected to be better based purely on athletic ability)? Sure, you could call all the carries on poorly attempted cross-overs, walks on poorly attempted jump-stops, hacks on attempted steals, pushes in the back on attempted rebounds, charges on attempted drives and push-offs on attempts to get a clear look at the basket but the disruption of doing so would make you personna non-grata right quick, even amongst your own teammates. By enforcing the rules in more meaningful competition, officials take such playground junk away and provide a more just playing field - *if* they enforce the rules evenly, that is. Now, officials do not have a God's-eye view of things. They can only call what they see (or think they see). An official or officiating crew may tend to look for certain things or err more to one side or the other (calling a game tight or loose) but as long as they do the same both ways, it is not right to suggest that they are biased just because that style of calling a game tends to favor the playing style of one team over another. Just as the foul on Villanova at the end of the game was a foul and should have been called whether there was 0.1 seconds left or 0.1 seconds passed, a "touch" foul on Roy should have been called if he hit a player's arm during a shot whether it affected the result or not. A foul is something outside the rules and, as such, players should simply not be allowed to do this in organized competition. Additional training of officials is a great idea. It would, presumably, lead to more consistent and more even calls (and, perhaps, smaller spare tires). Expecting that there be no variation in game interpretation among officials or officiating crews is asking too much, though. Such variation is part of the human condition, and preparation for and adjustment to this variation must be part of a team's game plan. Perhaps, in the future, automated referees may be created that would vastly reduce such variation but I won't hold my breath for their arrival. Every time a rule is changed, it changes the game to one degree or another. The introduction of the shot-clock and three-point line, the widening of the lane, the three-second rule and goal-tending, the outlawing and re-introduction of the dunk, the five-second closely-guarded rule and alternating possessions on jump balls, the change from indefinite one-and-one opportunities to two shots on fouls past the 9th - each of these made certain styles of play more or less effective. Personally, I am against each of these rule changes (with the possible exception of the lane, three-second and goal-tending rules) as I view them as counter to effective competition and the basic premise of the game: getting the ball in the basket and keeping your opponent from doing so. One could go back further - the introduction of free throws and the dribble, etc. - but such rules are so fundamental to the current playing of the game that I would have a very hard time with a reversion. My personal opinion aside, the current rules represent a particular game. If personal fouls were unlimited, it would, as RDF noted, fundamentally change the playing and strategy of the game. The danger of fouling out is a far greater deterrent for the best players than the occasional free-throw given up. If one had to allow for unlimited fouls, the penalty for fouling would have to be greater to keep the expected payoff of fouling down - say a free-throw and possession, instead of just possession for non-shooting fouls, two and possession for shooting fouls on missed shots, and possession for shooting fouls on made shots; there would be no defensive rebounding of missed free-throws. One of the reasons there is no need for offensive linemen to foul out of a football game is that the penalties for their infractions are, typically, enough to limit their tendency to commit them. Similarly, NBA-type rules, such as the block/charge arc and, until recently, "illegal" defense are meant more to market the game to the mass of fans, who presumably enjoy individual offensive showcasing over team play and solid defense. I hope that any further adoption of such rules does not come to pass in the college ranks. Your premise is right--but officials are NOT enforcing the rules of the game-they are making the game more competitive by manipulating the rules/enforcing them one way for the superior teams and letting the inferior teams get away with more. How is that fair? I'm not saying superior physical specimen are to be rewarded. I'm saying superior players/teams should be. If a guy is 7'2 and nobody on other team can stop him--that is their problem. It's not up to the official to "even" the game by calling phantom fouls on the guy to give them a chance. So his physical superiority is held against him. That's my issue and will be my issue until officiating is held to a higher standard--no wait-just held to the standard intended when they were introduced as part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Mar 28, 2008 18:15:34 GMT -5
The rules make the game. Basketball, football, tennis, chess - it doesn't matter. The purpose of playing a game (in addition to having fun) is to determine who plays the game better *within those rules*, not simply who is a superior physical specimen. Officials are there in organized sports to enforce the rules. How many here have played a game at Yates with someone who blatantly plays outside the rules? How much fun was it? Do you think the outcome of such games really demonstrated who was better at the game, or just who was willing to break enough rules to make sure they won (whether or not they were expected to be better based purely on athletic ability)? Sure, you could call all the carries on poorly attempted cross-overs, walks on poorly attempted jump-stops, hacks on attempted steals, pushes in the back on attempted rebounds, charges on attempted drives and push-offs on attempts to get a clear look at the basket but the disruption of doing so would make you personna non-grata right quick, even amongst your own teammates. By enforcing the rules in more meaningful competition, officials take such playground junk away and provide a more just playing field - *if* they enforce the rules evenly, that is. Now, officials do not have a God's-eye view of things. They can only call what they see (or think they see). An official or officiating crew may tend to look for certain things or err more to one side or the other (calling a game tight or loose) but as long as they do the same both ways, it is not right to suggest that they are biased just because that style of calling a game tends to favor the playing style of one team over another. Just as the foul on Villanova at the end of the game was a foul and should have been called whether there was 0.1 seconds left or 0.1 seconds passed, a "touch" foul on Roy should have been called if he hit a player's arm during a shot whether it affected the result or not. A foul is something outside the rules and, as such, players should simply not be allowed to do this in organized competition. Additional training of officials is a great idea. It would, presumably, lead to more consistent and more even calls (and, perhaps, smaller spare tires). Expecting that there be no variation in game interpretation among officials or officiating crews is asking too much, though. Such variation is part of the human condition, and preparation for and adjustment to this variation must be part of a team's game plan. Perhaps, in the future, automated referees may be created that would vastly reduce such variation but I won't hold my breath for their arrival. Every time a rule is changed, it changes the game to one degree or another. The introduction of the shot-clock and three-point line, the widening of the lane, the three-second rule and goal-tending, the outlawing and re-introduction of the dunk, the five-second closely-guarded rule and alternating possessions on jump balls, the change from indefinite one-and-one opportunities to two shots on fouls past the 9th - each of these made certain styles of play more or less effective. Personally, I am against each of these rule changes (with the possible exception of the lane, three-second and goal-tending rules) as I view them as counter to effective competition and the basic premise of the game: getting the ball in the basket and keeping your opponent from doing so. One could go back further - the introduction of free throws and the dribble, etc. - but such rules are so fundamental to the current playing of the game that I would have a very hard time with a reversion. My personal opinion aside, the current rules represent a particular game. If personal fouls were unlimited, it would, as RDF noted, fundamentally change the playing and strategy of the game. The danger of fouling out is a far greater deterrent for the best players than the occasional free-throw given up. If one had to allow for unlimited fouls, the penalty for fouling would have to be greater to keep the expected payoff of fouling down - say a free-throw and possession, instead of just possession for non-shooting fouls, two and possession for shooting fouls on missed shots, and possession for shooting fouls on made shots; there would be no defensive rebounding of missed free-throws. One of the reasons there is no need for offensive linemen to foul out of a football game is that the penalties for their infractions are, typically, enough to limit their tendency to commit them. Similarly, NBA-type rules, such as the block/charge arc and, until recently, "illegal" defense are meant more to market the game to the mass of fans, who presumably enjoy individual offensive showcasing over team play and solid defense. I hope that any further adoption of such rules does not come to pass in the college ranks. Your premise is right--but officials are NOT enforcing the rules of the game-they are making the game more competitive by manipulating the rules/enforcing them one way for the superior teams and letting the inferior teams get away with more. How is that fair? I'm not saying superior physical specimen are to be rewarded. I'm saying superior players/teams should be. If a guy is 7'2 and nobody on other team can stop him--that is their problem. It's not up to the official to "even" the game by calling phantom fouls on the guy to give them a chance. So his physical superiority is held against him. That's my issue and will be my issue until officiating is held to a higher standard--no wait-just held to the standard intended when they were introduced as part of the game. I think we have two different views of the calls in the game. I can point to one or two specific places where calls should have been made in favor of the Hoyas (e.g., Curry on Wright, perhaps, though I would like to have seen Wright fake the shot and then take it once Curry was helpless in the air to give the refs no choice in the matter) given the calls that had been made against them (e.g., Hibbert's touch fouls). However, from what I could see, there was not an overwhelming amount of this, in comparison to other games where this had been the case (e.g., in which opposing centers/forwards would constantly be pushing on Roy and not called for it despite Roy's being called for the occasional warding-off of said opponent). No, the thing here was that, from the start of the game, the refs were calling things fairly tightly, which favored Davidson because they do not play too physically and to which we did not make appropriate adjustments. Yes, Roy got in foul trouble and was kept out for most of the game, but each of the fouls I saw called against him could legitimately have been called, given the tenor of fouls throughout the game in general. It was unfortunate that it was not clear how they were calling the game until he got his second (the first would have been called whether the refs were calling a tight or a loose game and a touch foul on one of our other players would have clued us in without sending Roy to the bench) but after that we should have made adjustments when he was in the lineup to keep him from getting in positions/playing with a mindset in which it was likely that the third/fourth would be called. Instead, we chose to continue playing tight D, posting up physically and, on occasion, driving into traffic, each of which cost us fouls and, in the case of the latter two, turnovers. This worked well enough for us while Davidson's offense sputtered (to the tune of being up 17) but once they collected themselves it definitely hurt. We needed a change in strategy (something over which we had power) *given* the way the game was being called (something over which we did not), not a change in the calling of the game, which, again, was not all that uneven in my opinion, despite the one or two lapses. Basically, I did not see that they were manipulating the rules or calling the game unevenly (outside allowable variation), and the fouls called on Hibbert, while light, were not, I think, phantom calls. Holding officials to a "God's-eye" standard is not realistic and blaming their choice of calling styles instead of our reaction (or lack thereof) to that calling style does not sit right with me. Giving Davidson a ridiculously low seed (should have been a 7 or 8, at the lowest, given how well they played in their few OOC losses away and against tough competition) in a pod in which they were the presumptive home team against any of the opponents they might face and in which they could expect overwhelming crowd support from additional Carolina/local fans no matter who they faced in a second-round game - now THAT is something to complain about (the same, absent the mis-seeding, could be said about the placement of Kansas St., by the way). I don't see that team making such a comeback without the extremely high-level energy they got from the Raleigh crowd.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Mar 29, 2008 19:24:15 GMT -5
Yes, the conversation was prompted by the Hoyas game. Not sure how I feel about his proposal - fouling out is part of the game, and players need to adjust to the way it is being called. It's part of the game until it's not part of the game, at which point it's not part of the game and doesn't need to be adjusted to.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Mar 31, 2008 8:48:08 GMT -5
I can't see a guy who has 5 or more fouls and who would give up 2 shots and the ball for a foul still being very agressive on defense.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 31, 2008 10:55:20 GMT -5
Why not give the opposing team an automatic 2 pts for any foul committed by a guy with 5 fouls who continues to foul. Just to keep integrity of the game--oh wait--this would give more power to officials who have no integrity--nevermind.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 31, 2008 13:32:49 GMT -5
How about, every time a player fouls someone, he has to leave the game until the next stoppage? (you can possibly exempt the last two minutes of the half or game from this)
Or maybe just have that rule in place for every time a player fouls after he gets to, say, four fouls? Four freebies, and then all subsequent fouls, you have to sit for at least one possession.
Coaches can choose to use their timeouts if they want to re-insert a player, but he has to be out for a minimum of one possession.
They should also consider -- like hockey and soccer -- making flopping a technical foul in and of itself, but since officials can't get simple blocks vs. charges vs. no calls right, I don't want to tax them too much.
College basketball does need the NBA's little circle under the basket though. If you're on or inside that line, you cannot draw a charge.
|
|