Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimgolf
Look at it from a player's point of view. If you tell a player he's not allowed to dribble with two hands, he tries his best not to dribble with two hands. How many double-dribbles a game do you call?
Another example. It's illegal to wear jewelry. When you tell a player to remove their jewelry, how often do they come back into the game wearing the jewelry?
|
But Jim, neither of those examples is an unavoidable part of the game of basketball. Hand contact is unavoidable if you're setting a screen. Or if you're cutting around a defender in close quaters. Or if you're contesting a loose ball on the ground.
Now you look at it from a player's point of view. You may never touch an opponent with your hand, ever. Would you really want to play basketball if the refs enforced that rule?
|
Chuck, I don't think Jim is advocating for the position of calling every single solitary contact. He's just saying that players will adjust to how we call it. The Tower Philosophy seems to say call less so the flow of the game won't be interrupted. But Jim's saying that however it's called, players will adjust (over time) and after a certain adjustment period, the flow will be there, although the game might be a little different. So the Tower argument is specious. It should say, this is the compromise we've all agreed on as the mushy middle between calling nothing and calling everything. Jim's saying that to base it on the principle of "don't interrupt the flow" is not good reasoning.
Sat Nov 26, 2005, 12:37pm
Threaded Mode
