|
Sun Apr 21, 2002, 09:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The article on the front page was very diplomatic in its criticism of the new rule, which eliminates the discontinuation of the count during an interrupted dribble.
This change is just crazy. The article brought up the case of a loose ball in the lane, where the offense could be effectively be penalized for going after the ball. But what if the ball's loose outside the lane? There's no three-second count while the ball is in the back-court. This is presumably because with no reasonable scoring threat present, there is no significant advantage in extending one's stay in the lane. During an interrupted dribble, the same could rightly be said. The player is no longer simply a pass away from being in good scoring position, he is a recovery by a teammate plus a pass away from being in good scoring position. If mistakes by the offense, e.g. bad passes and poor dribbling are going to be penalized more; and good play by the defense, e.g. knocking the ball loose, is to be rewarded more, I wish the committee would have taken the next logical step in this line of reasoning, which is automatically awarding held balls to the defense. I don't think the latter is a good idea by itself, but the idea gains a lot more plausibility with the institution of the new assenine rule. jb 
|
|
Sun Apr 21, 2002, 09:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
Even though the NF makes the point that there is still team control during an interrupted dribble and therefore the count should be in effect, I fear this is yet another example of the cop-out the NF rules committee uses whenever they feel a rule is "too complicated" for us dumb officials to understand, or is "not being enforced" so they change it.
Witness the change in the excessive swinging of elbows rule, downgrading it from a technical foul to a violation. Why? Because, according to the NF, many officials felt the penalty was so harsh, many officials declined to call it. Notice they don't say that the penalty was wrong, just that it wasn't enforced so therefore they must make it a lesser penalty so it will be called. Hey, here's an idea - why not just make it a point of emphasis and instruct officials to call it? Oh wait - that's too logical. Do you really think we started using the AP arrow on jumps because it was a better idea than actually jumping? Of course not. At the time, the NF said it was because so many officials were bad at tossing jump balls. So, instead of imploring us to become better, they changed the rule. Maybe if we stop calling fouls, they'll change all hard contact to violations.  BTW - what's the new mechanic for violation of the new mercy rule? Maybe it's making a gesture like a wuss. Just for reference - a wuss is a guy who gets out of the shower to take a leak. 
__________________
Yom HaShoah
|
|
Sun Apr 21, 2002, 09:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't have a like or dislike regaring this rule change. What it does is make the rule consistent with any other loss of player control. However, why did this exception exist anyway? The count now continues during an inturrpted dribble. It's always continued during a fumble or a loose ball after a poor pass. Why should the count not continue during an interrupted dribble? In any case, I don't think most officials will change the way they enforce the rule. no one does it by the book anyway, thank goodness!
 We don't want to go down the path of awarding held balls to the defense. The NCAA did it a couple of years ago, after Dick Vitale lobbied for years. It was a complete failure, so much so, that even Vitale stopped screaming for it.
|
|
Sun Apr 21, 2002, 11:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
