rolling the ball in the backcourt part 2
 

I just had a thought about this and wanted to see what you all think.

Say team A is inbounding on the baseline and want to save time and roll the ball in the backcourt to the frontcourt. Do they still need to comply with the 5 seconds to inbound rule? I've seen some players roll the ball really slowly because they want to make sure that the ball stays close to them and not roll out of control to a defender who may want to come up from the frontcourt.

The throwin count ends when the thrower releases the ball. So, the speed of the rolling ball is irrelavent.

In fact, it is possible for the ball to come to a stop on the court for a very long time with no one touching it without a violation since the backcourt count and the clock (or the shot clock in levels that use one) do not start until a player touches ball (clock starts) or controls the ball (10 count start if in backcourt)

As I have raised in previous threads - this is one area where the FIBA rule is WAY WAY better.

With FIBA, the 5 second count ends when the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. Under the NCAA rules, it is possible that the game could go on indefinitely if no-one goes on and picks the ball up.

So if the player throwing in the ball waits 3 or 4 seconds before releasing the ball for a long throwin pass the length of the court, and your count gets to 5 while the ball is in the air you call a violation?

I don't hate FIBA like some people here, but I don't see how that is better.

Technically yes, the correct call is a 5 second count. But realistically, if the player releases the ball before the 5 second count most referees would never call it.

The reason this is better than the NCAA rules is that it is possible (in theory) for Team A to inbound the ball (thus ending the 5 second count) but no player touches the ball, and the ball remains in court. Since a player has not touched the ball the game clock doesn't start - so the game goes on forever.

While this scenario is extremely unlikely, it is possible under NCAA rules - but can NEVER happen in FIBA.

I like the American rule better, because it can be consistently enforced.

This scenario isn't happening at any level, regardless of the rule. Show me the players who are all (offense and defense) going to stand there and stare at a loose ball in play, and I'll show you two coaches pulling their hair out.

It isn't going to happen. And, if it ever did (for some unknown and unforeseen reason), that's why God invented the inadvertent whistle.

Sorry OZ but that's a goofy reason for thinking your rule is better. First off, what you suggest is never going to happen. Second, let me clue you in in something. The NCAA had the same rule at one time. It was changed to the present rule.

BTW, why aren't you going to call that violation when the ball is thrown the length of the floor? What governs when you call the violation and when you don't. "I got to 5 but the pass was almost to half court, so I didn't call it." I got to 5 but the pass was to the FT lane, so I didn't call it." Sorry but that makes no sense. You are calling the play by our rule, even though you advocate your own. So why not make the call if your rule is so much better?

I like the American rule better because basketball was invented in America, and FIBA shouldn't be fixing what isn't broken.

How's that for jingoism?

By a Canadian.

Canadians first played hockey and North American style football too. Oh, and hopefully the major sport in NA - Lacrosse - is Canadian.

You can have baseball.

How's that for jingoism? ;)

Oz, based on my experience here in the US with both US & international teams there's little chance of the game "going on indefinitely" when a loose ball is rolling on the floor. Someone's gonna eventually want it badly enough to pick it up.

I see what you are saying, but let me try to explain what I meant - if I get to halfway through my count of the fifth second and the player has released the ball and it is in mid flight, about to be caught, then I'm not going to blow the whistle.

It's similar to the 3 second call. The count stops when a shot is released - so if a player has been in the key for 2.999 seconds and his team-mate is in the process of shooting a layup, but hasn't actually released the ball...is any referee actually going to blow the 3 seconds? I don't think so.

Dan - I completely agree. If you refereed a billion games, it probably is never going to happen. But IF it did happen, FIBA rules allow the refs to do something about it. NCAA rules don't. As Snaqwells said, the only bail-out is an inadvertant whistle. I believe that any possible sitch that results in the referee having to "accidently" blow their whistle is a bad one.

There is another possibility. Travesty. If neither team wants to play, game over.

Seriously, the odds are so against it, it's really not worth changing a rule over. The down side to the FIBA rule is such that it far outweighs its ability to solve the problem that will never really exist in the real world.

I'd say that given that this is a game where both teams want the ball, it won't happen, ever, at any level.

And, given that the referee has the ability to rule on situations not covered specifically in the rules, an "inadvertent whistle" is a perfectly acceptable way to address this once in history occurrance.

Not true, Oz. There are rules that prevent either team from allowing the game to turn into an actionless contest. Further, the referee can rule on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.

10-1-1


10-1-3

This is the difference I have experienced after having to officiate under both sets of rules. NCAA allows almost the full 5 seconds to inbounds the ball, that is release the ball. FIBA only gives the inbounder a maximum of 4 seconds before the ball is released and then it needs to be touched by a player inbounds. All FIBA does is speeds up the continuous play portion of the game. My preference is the NCAA way.

To tell you the truth I'm still not sure *why* we need to do anything about it, and the last thing I would do would be to hit the whistle. After all, it would be too much fun listening to coach B scream "GET THE BALL!!!! GET IT!!!!!! PICK UP THE ####ING BALL!!!" when his player refuses to go after it. :)

In theory you may have a point tho. I just don't think it's worth worrying about in practice.

For 10-1-1, there has been no technical foul for a team to comply with. Whether such action is a travesty is certain possible. The rules don't offer any suggestion of the types of acts that would be a travesty. I'm thinking of attempts to cheat or a coach refusing to leave after being DQ'd.

I believe 10-1-3 addresses a team that refuses/fails to take the court. It doesn't address the manner in which they play.

10-3-20 is not applicable either. That's to cover a player batting the ball in the stands on purpose or refusing to give the ball to an official when the ball is dead.

The only thing that is left in the officials pocket is 2-3...and it might be the best thing to use.

The official could go pick up the ball and walk over to a player and touch him with it to get the clock started. ;)

In fact, if any of these rules were applicable, North Carolina would not have nearly so many wins....several of those contests were actionless. ;)

Dean Smith's 4 Corners Offense was ingenious...he's a legend! I wonder how he was to officiate. Anyone have any good 2nd hand stories?

One man's assho....I mean, opinion. :D

And if Aldoph Rupp had be willing to recruit black athletes, UK would have a lot more wins. :)

I guess when you are white you can make references about social issues. ;)

Peace

I agree that it was very ingenious...because it was legal and it accomplished the desired goal...a win. Doesn't mean it is an enjoyable style to watch. ;)