Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

The fact is that the team did use it's two biggest players, we know what happened, and most of us agree that the league can make such a determination.

Since the team didn't use the two smallest players, we don't know how the league would have ruled, so it's pointless to speculate on it.

Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

But that is just the point, Team A used its tWo largest players to set a moving screen, what difference does the size of a player has to do with the situation? "Nothing, absolutely nothing!"

This was decision borne out of political correctness, plain and simple.

If a bunch of third graders are being chased around the court by a couple behemoths behaving in a decidedly un-basketball-like manner, is it political correctness or common sense? Why would you want this to continue? What end does it serve? Who does it benefit? Can you state a single benefit that any child in one of these games derives from allowing this to continue? You cite rules, but absolutely nowhere do you provide a benefit to following these rules in this case.

More to the point, given a group of 8 year old kids who don't know how to dribble, pass, or shoot, why would you want the POE in my one hour of practice per week to be how to take a charge from a player twice their size?

What you are seeing is priorities, Mark, not PC.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Mark, why isn't this unfair to the larger players who aren't learning anything of value? Why aren't you upset about what it does to 8-year-old girls to be set up as objects of fear and loathing? I can't see what this has to do with political correctness!

Just look how you are describing the play of these two girls': "a bunch of third graders are being chased around the court by a couple behemoths behaving in a decidedly un-basketball-like manner"

If these two girls' were your daughters would you like someone to call them a couple of behemoths just because they are the two biggest players on the court.

Once again the only reason, the recreation department issued its directive is because the size of the girls setting the screens. If the players involved were not the biggest players on the court, nothing would have been said. Furthermore, if one follows the recreation department's directive, does that mean, if the two smallest players on the team set the same type of screen, that they too are guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct?

Once more I state that the best way to handle the situation is to apply the guarding and screening rules as written in the rules book.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

The recreation department set up these girls as objects of fear and loathing by issuing such a stupid directive. If the girls's coach who designed this play had used the two smallest girls on the team to set the screen in this play not a word would have been said. The officials would have officiated as per the rules and the game would have gone on.

The directive was just political correctness run amok. Instruct the officials to apply the guarding/screening rules and the problem would have gone away on its own.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Based on your arguement they should be able to press,play zone,and run an isolation offense too.After all those non-rule book rules unfairly hinder players based on size and ability.

Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about this? This is not about being PC,it is about making the game fair,safe,and fun for little kids that are learning to play basketball.

Mark
We have argued that there are problems with letting this play go as it is at this age group. I simply ask for you to list a benefit that somebody realizes. Big girls aren't learning anything. Driver is getting a wideopen lane, so she isn't learning. Everyone on this team will learn this as a good hoops tactic when it is never employed at higher levels. The opponents gain nothing, unless they put themselves at risk so they can draw a foul.

So please, once again, I would like to know who benefits from allowing this type of play to go on in 3rd grade?

What is the deal?
 

Plus it's YMCA or rec ball. They use the NFHS rules as a guideline not a policy. They make their own rules based on the level and age of play. Quoting NFHS rules for this particular thread means squat IMO.

Who started this fiasco?
 

When I started this thread I never dreamed it would lead to anything like this. As to the play in question, I pictured it as a gimmick play like the barking dog on the inbounds play that might work rarely if at all. As far as the size of the girls involved, I see that as a non-issue. Were the girls in question that much bigger than some of the others?
Probably not, but even if they were, as 8 year old girls go it seems that smaller girls are often the most tenacious, aggressive, yes, sometimes, dirtiest players on the court just as in any age group. As far as improving real basketball skills the lesson here is to teach the defense to stand its ground, and that a defender is entitled to maintain her own spot on the floor. Is this play potentially dangerous? Perhaps, but no more so than many other situations. BUT, I wasn't there when all this happened, so like countless other times, I yield to those who were, and if the powers that be say this play is illegal, I cannot imagine any referee starting an argument about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Mark,

I coach YWCA elmentary girls. I don't spend much time teaching them how to block a shot and not GT, I also don't take time to teach them to not tap the ball while it's on the rim. Likewise, I teach them to stand their ground on defense but I don't teach them to take a charge.

How do you teach a 10 year old girl to take a charge?

The girls are not ready yet, the officials are not ready yet and I contend that YWCA elementary league basketball is not ready.

Thanks, Stan

I don't have my rules book with me, but doesn't it say something about using intimidating tactics? If we're talking about a few moving screens where the defense voluntarily runs 10 feet away, I've got nothing. But if we're talking about a point guard running between the tackles following the full back and tight end, with the defense running for cover, I'll allow the first basket to count. But I'm stopping the ball right now and informing the coach that it's a play I find questionable and any future occurrances will force me to decide whether to call an unsportsmanlike T on his girls. It would be in his best interest not to make me decide.
FWIW, the first time I have to call it, I'll pick one of the blockers and call a T. The next time, I'm calling a T on each blocker.
The play in question was done repeatedly, to the point where the defense eventually got scared. This isn't basketball.
Same situation as the player getting on all fours to set a screen.

Re: Re: Green Bay sweep
 

Not to beat a totally dead horse, but the officials in our game (the second game of the season) did enforce the rules, but the behavior succeeded in doing what it was intended to do - intimidate the opponents. Fouls were called (although they were not "intentional", and I don't remember if that was an option back then), a couple of girls got pushed around pretty hard with what a football coach would have called "good, clean, blocks", and one girl was even pushed to the floor. Perhaps the officials could have taken further action, but everyone other than the offending coach agreed that the behavior was outside the spirit of the league.

MTD, as a parent, you know that you have had to come up with some rules explict for your kids as a result of their behavior. "Jimmy, do not put peanut butter in your sister's hair" was not something you imagined you would ever need to articulate as a "rule". I am sure that the rec department never imagined that they would have to have an explict rule related to intentional intimidation of 3rd graders. Like good parents, when they found behavior contrary to their standards and morals, they took action to correct abberant behavior.