What do you think is the dumbest rule?

[Rich]

The problem with that is that a majority of officials were not calling it correctly: contact (rough play) that should have been a foul was routinely ignored. There was a lot of shoving and pushing with no calls. They gave up on getting the officials to make the call and eliminated the situation.

The only advantage to the defense in going in on the release is that they have more time to push the offensive player away from the basket.

I'm aware of the history behind the rule change. I just hate that the rules were changed because officials didn't do their jobs. *I* never had any problems calling rebounding fouls. Just like now I don't have any problems calling off-ball fouls even though half the officials I watch work (mostly JV officials before my games) are notorious ball-watchers.

Instead, now we have people on the lanes trying to game the system by sliding in the lane RIGHT at the last minute. Technically, we have violations on just about every free throw, but nobody (including me) calls it that way.

I'm just venting. I just hate how they dumb the rules down so that they don't have to worry about officials. They did that in NFHS baseball, too, with the automatic appeal back in the 80s. It took more than a decade for them to realize how stupid that rule was and change it back to match the other codes.

Rich

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mregor
Of course it's an advantage, which is intended, but I think the Fed could have achieved the advantage in other ways. If they want to limit it to 6 players in occupied lane spaces, IMO they should have left the bottom ones empty. This gives the defense more room and they wouldn't have to be as physical trying to maintain (or gain) their advantagous position.

The FED considered this option and rejected it for this year. If the defense still doesn't get "enough" rebounds, then look for it to be implemented in the next couple of years.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

my son works for the government and they frown on this type of vulgarity...

Originally posted by TPS2859
HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN

Well, I guess Bill had IILF's . . . .

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by NorthSide
While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

Never seen it done this way . . . . .


Most refs I see come out onto the court at about 15, do the meetings, check the book, then head back downstairs at 10 or so (when at least one team goes back to the lockers). They then come back up at 3 minutes left - whether teams were back on the court ahead of that time or not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Never seen it done this way . . . . .


Most refs I see come out onto the court at about 15, do the meetings, check the book, then head back downstairs at 10 or so (when at least one team goes back to the lockers). They then come back up at 3 minutes left - whether teams were back on the court ahead of that time or not.

That's (generally) the NCAA women's mechanic.

[Rich]

We (in WI) are on the court at 20 minutes. Captains meeting at 12:00, R checks the book right after while the U goes back to the sidelines. After the table meeting, R goes back across. Meet the coaches (V first) at 1:30 and ask the required question.

We don't leave the floor even if the teams do.

Other WI officials may do it differently -- this is how my partners and I do every game.

Rich

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by TXMATTHEW05
Hello, all. I was wondering, what do you think the dumbest rule in basketball is?

First, administrative technicals for something like the starters not being marked. I can understand incorrect numbers and such (even though most would agree that 99% of the time it's just error, not deceiet). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what difference it makes. When I do the books, I don't even mark who goes in afterwards, because that sort of information is irrelevant, really. The only purpose I can see would be to confirm that the number is in the book, but I double check during the pre-game. I just don't get it. It's a dumb rule.

What do you all think?

I should probably read the thread first, but I like this rule. I've convinced officials to enforce it twice. I use that ten minutes to contemplate how I want to matchup in a man-to-man defense, and to possibly refresh certain players on the tendencies of the player she will be guarding.

[BobW]

Dumbest rule?

My nominee is the "legal" jump stop.

It is a travel in the base case, codified into legitimacy for some reason (maybe someone knows?) .... when you add in what higher level players (NBA and DI) are allowed to get away with (stepping after the stop, non-simultaneous landings), it makes for a lot of headaches at all levels.

[Stan]

Originally posted by Pirate
I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

Iowa girls do this. I think it works.

Thanks, Stan

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BobW
My nominee is the "legal" jump stop.

It is a travel in the base case, codified into legitimacy for some reason (maybe someone knows?) .... when you add in what higher level players (NBA and DI) are allowed to get away with (stepping after the stop, non-simultaneous landings), it makes for a lot of headaches at all levels.

Although I agree with you, Bob, that the jump stop should not be legal (as I've written a few times), it's not a travel "in the base case". Traveling is a result of illegal movements of the pivot foot. And when a player receives the ball while airborne, the pivot foot is not established until the second foot touches the ground. So when the player lands on one foot, s/he hasn't yet established either foot as the pivot. So it's not a violation to lift and then return that foot (since it's not yet the pivot foot) to the floor.

I don't like the result, but it's legal b/c of how the pivot rule is written.

[BobW]

ChuckElias:

I see it differently. NFHS 4.42.2.b.2 is the origin of the jump stop ... the stated assumption is that the ball is caught with "one foot on the floor" ... if this article was not in the rule book, the one immediately preceding it would dictate that the foot on the floor is the pivot foot ... the article I cite, imho, is essentially an exception to the prohibition against the pivot foot returning to the floor.

You do correctly point out that the jump stop deals with the establishment of a pivot foot but that (restrictions upon the pivot foot)is the core of the travel rule ... not two steps, or one-and-a-half steps.