Quote:
Originally posted by djh3
1. I read the rule (before writing the statement).
Here is the rule, and I do not see the part where it says an advantage has to be gained by the offensive player? Hum, must be one of those un-official rules mandated by Stern. Then you wonder why fans think there is a conspiracy, when you don't play by the rules as written. Hum.
Section VII-Three-Second Rule
a. A player shall not remain for more than 3 seconds in that part of his free throw lane between the endline and extended 4' (imaginary) off the court and the farther edge of the free throw line while the ball is in control of his team.
b. Allowance may be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than 3 seconds, is in the act of shooting at the end of the third second. Under these conditions, the 3-second count is discontinued while his continuous motion is toward the basket. If that continuous motion ceases, the previous 3-second count is continued.
c. The 3-second count shall not begin until the ball is in control in the offensive team's frontcourt.
PENALTY:Loss of ball. The ball is awarded to the opponent at the sideline at the free throw line extended.
2. You do not measure only the number of violations, but the number of times the team is called. You convert to a percentage and compare. Example.
Team A had 20 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called twice.
They were called 10% of the time.
Team B had 30 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called once.
3.3%.
I would bet that most statistics experts would say the sample is too small, however if you did it for a whole series and it came out to 10% vs. 3.3%, then there is a bias. Against or for a particular player or team.
It is apparent that you do not value looking at things from a fans perspective and that evidently you think everyone except officials are morons.
The truth is the officiating was poor and biased for game 6. Was that a result of pressure (direct or indirect) of the league &/or NBC? I don't know. Neither do you, unless you are one of the three who worked the game. Do the officials have a financial interest in making sure the league makes money? If there are more playoff games, does that mean the officials can make more money? Hum. I am sure you all know all the answers.
You know, I have worked for 20 years with commerical aircraft pilots, and I thought there was a large percentage of them who had huge egos. Then for the last 10 years I have worked with attorneys, and you know the reputation they have. Well, these two groups don't have anything on some of the officals who write in these forums.
|
You claim that team A violated the rule 20 times and team B
violated it 30 times. Fair enough, please supply the times
during the game when these violations occured along with
the player who violated. Of course, we have already
stipulated that the 3 second rule is *not* called as
written in any league, from lowest to highest, that use
officials who know the game. It is the most misunderstood
rule for non-expert observers to understand, but there is
agreement among experts (coaches, players, refs, talent scouts, referee supervisors) on how it should be called.
So you've established yourself as a non-expert in the field.
You in fact could test my expert assertion on how the rule
is called by observing enough games yourself and speaking to
coaches and players. Then you conclude by once again
making an unproven claim (maybe even unprovable) that the
refereeing was not only poor but biased based upon your own
nonexpert analysis of how the rules should be called,
construct by implication a shadowy yet huge conspiracy and
finally insult not one, not two but three completely
unrelated groups of people. And we're the ones who are
arrogant? You, my friend, are simply a fan, and a simple
fan at that.
If you're going to talk conspiracy, how about
this one: the NBA gets free advertisement every time a
media person claims the game is biased. You, of course,
buy completely into it because you don't know better but it
somehow makes you feel good. Then even Ralph Nader, bless
his pointy little head, comes down from the mountain top and
decrees that the consumer has been cheated by biased
refereeing! People who wouldn't know the difference between
a basketball and a basket of flowers are now debating the
merits of NBA refereeing! My friend, you just cannot buy
that kind of brand exposure. That is the real conspiracy.