Spin move - D2 Title game (Video)

[deecee]

Originally Posted by EricH

I find it interesting that we expect 3rd graders to not travel, but not the best athletes in the world. This is just laziness.

What's funny is that, until FIBA changed the rule, FIBA officials called a many more travels on the spin move than NCAA officials.

I find a lot of things "interesting" in theory versus application. It is what it is and will change when the expectation of coaches, assignors, and all officials change at any given level.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by deecee

I find a lot of things "interesting" in theory versus application. It is what it is and will change when the expectation of coaches, assignors, and all officials change at any given level.

Just think about this though. Why does a FIBA or NBA player need a "gather step"? He doesn't. The defense is placed at a disadvantage (because he must move backward and keep himself in LGP) when the offensive player is allowed to continue moving (after a pass) or change direction (during a spin move) at full speed without dribbling. This was the reason for the pivot foot rule in the first place.

If we are going to give the offense more latitude, we should do the same for the defense. We should get rid of LGP altogether. If the defensive player is not moving toward the offensive player and the offensive player hits the defensive player in the torso, it should be a PC foul. This would put offense and defense on equal footing.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just think about this though. Why does a FIBA or NBA player need a "gather step"? He doesn't. The defense is placed at a disadvantage (because he must move backward and keep himself in LGP) when the offensive player is allowed to continue moving (after a pass) or change direction (during a spin move) at full speed without dribbling. This was the reason for the pivot foot rule in the first place.

If we are going to give the offense more latitude, we should do the same for the defense. We should get rid of LGP altogether. If the defensive player is not moving toward the offensive player and the offensive player hits the defensive player in the torso, it should be a PC foul. This would put offense and defense on equal footing.

I have no idea what you just said? What is in bold is a PC foul and I don't see what LGP has to do with this.

The powers that be want MORE offense and MORE freedom of movement. They DON'T want defensive battle royales with teams beating each other up. Basketball is a game of finesse which happens to also have some level of contact baked into it. I still haven't noticed any decrease in PC fouls and this argument only comes up with an opposing player does it so it's not really an issue.

The plain truth is that if you call a lot of travels (or 3 second violations) in your games your ceiling is very low these days. That took me about a year or 2 to digest and comprehend and I adjusted how I called the game. The case in point is the @#$@#$ bunnyhop that shooters do beyond the arc. It drives me crazy but when I stopped calling it I started getting better games, moved into JUCO and a year later did a few D2 games. After about 3 years of that I decided it wasn't for me as the time to $ was a bit skewed along with the attitudes we have to deal with.

You don't have to listen to me but it's what it is. No amount of complaining will change it. I always remember the saying that I heard the most from any official that either is or was at the level I wanted to get to.

"Any call you make you better be ready to hang your reputation and career on the line."

Was I going to do that for 50/50 travel calls made in real time with kids who were faster than spit in traffic, in a lane, making an offensive move to the basket?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by deecee

I have no idea what you just said? What is in bold is a PC foul and I don't see what LGP has to do with this.

Actually, it's only a PC foul if the defensive player already has LGP. If the defensive player runs in front of the offensive player, does not obtain LGP, and gets run over, this is a blocking foul (without considering flagrant contact by the offense).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, it's only a PC foul if the defensive player already has LGP. If the defensive player runs in front of the offensive player, does not obtain LGP, and gets run over, this is a blocking foul (without considering flagrant contact by the offense).

This is not practical at all. In most cases a defender hit squarely in the torso usually has their right to their spot, the exception would be in block charge scenario where a secondary defender is sliding over and the torso is ahead of the feet. Secondly In a spin move an offensive player is spinning away from a defender so if said defender was already there LGP has already been established.

You are making stuff up that doesn't exist. LGP only matters in block/charge scenarios. LGP is not a requirement for a defender to have a legal right to a space on the group. The foul call may be the difference between a PC or a generic foul on the offense, but the adjudication and penalty is the same. You are splitting a hair that doesn't exist nor needs splitting IMO.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by deecee

In most cases a defender hit squarely in the torso usually has their right to their spot

I specifically identified a situation where the defensive player was moving and had not established LGP.

the exception would be in block charge scenario where a secondary defender is sliding over and the torso is ahead of the feet.

And this is my point for bringing it up. The NBA and new FIBA rules make it much easier for the ball-handler to "beat" the defense by taking extra steps.

Secondly In a spin move an offensive player is spinning away from a defender so if said defender was already there LGP has already been established.

That is an assumption that is not always true.

LGP only matters in block/charge scenarios.

As I stated in my previous post and above, NBA and FIBA have given the offense an advantage by allowing extra steps with no offsetting change for the defense.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by EricH

...



As I stated in my previous post and above, NBA and FIBA have given the offense an advantage by allowing extra steps with no offsetting change for the defense.

And when the opposing team gets the ball, they can take advantage of the same rule to beat the defense. It's what the respective leagues/governing bodies have decided they want. And if you are officiating one of those games, adjudicate the plays accordingly.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just think about this though. Why does a FIBA or NBA player need a "gather step"? He doesn't. The defense is placed at a disadvantage (because he must move backward and keep himself in LGP) when the offensive player is allowed to continue moving (after a pass) or change direction (during a spin move) at full speed without dribbling. This was the reason for the pivot foot rule in the first place.

If we are going to give the offense more latitude, we should do the same for the defense. We should get rid of LGP altogether. If the defensive player is not moving toward the offensive player and the offensive player hits the defensive player in the torso, it should be a PC foul. This would put offense and defense on equal footing.

The argument is a player safety issue (that is not a player safety issue), but its actually a product issue. The rules are designed (FIBA, NBA) for adult professional men to play in front of paying crowds. As a result they want more dunks, more fast breaks, more high speed action and less standing and grinding. They are given the extra step because the speeds and masses of the bodies involved. Getting giant men travelling at reckless speeds, to stop their forward momentum using the foot already on the floor without travelling would require either A) an unnatural stopping motion for highly paid high performance athletes that could cause injuries or wear and tear on knees and joints, OR B) the athlete to slow down, be less dynamic and more in control of the their speed and mass. Since they don't want B and A can be a dollar and cents issue out of leagues and owners pockets, they came up with a rule change that eliminates both and actually increases the speed, movement and explosiveness of offensive players.

When they sell it to youth levels and club programs they talk about more natural stopping movements at pace, but what they mean is "we want the game the played so fast by giants we don't want them to slow down or risk hurting themselves needing complicated body movements",

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just think about this though. Why does a FIBA or NBA player need a "gather step"? He doesn't. The defense is placed at a disadvantage (because he must move backward and keep himself in LGP) when the offensive player is allowed to continue moving (after a pass) or change direction (during a spin move) at full speed without dribbling. This was the reason for the pivot foot rule in the first place.

If we are going to give the offense more latitude, we should do the same for the defense. We should get rid of LGP altogether. If the defensive player is not moving toward the offensive player and the offensive player hits the defensive player in the torso, it should be a PC foul. This would put offense and defense on equal footing.

You speak as if the NBA just changed the rule last season. This has been the rule, there is no new disadvantage all of a sudden.

Who cares what the NBA or FIBA allow unless you are working a game under the respective rule set. Regardless, one thing I will not care about is whether or not it is "fair" to the defense. All the players on the court play both offense and defense, so all players on the court are subject to the exact same advantages and disadvantages of the rule.