Why FIBA, Why?

Originally Posted by constable

Only allowing players to wear # 4-15.

I don't do FIBA, but having watched a lot of the FIBA stuff on TV, I can almost say the good reason for this is when reporting, you usually have to indicate 1, 2, or 3 FT's, so doing a jersey number 1-3 and then the number of FT's can get confusing to the scorekeeper. Remember, not all of those folks who work the book are 100% knowledgeable about how we report those fouls.

[JRutledge]

Because they did not invent basketball.

One of these rules is the reason the 1972 USA Basketball team got screwed (in their mind, not my thinking). I do not understand why the table plays such a role in calling a timeout.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because they did not invent basketball.

One of these rules is the reason the 1972 USA Basketball team got screwed (in their mind, not my thinking). I do not understand why the table plays such a role in calling a timeout.

Peace

And here I thought it was because of the do-overs. Are those allowed in FIBA rules?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And here I thought it was because of the do-overs. Are those allowed in FIBA rules?

Actually there was a documentary that HBO Sports produced that dealt with the Olympic situation in great detail. FIBA allowed timeouts to only go through the scorer's table, which were not properly handled. This was the reason for the constant tries at the play and the reason the final try was successful. I am not saying that is right, just that if you have such a flawed rule and a major confusion based on that rule, usually you do not keep that rule. Or at the very least you modify or change the rule so you do not have a similar incident as before. It appears that FIBA has similar rules as they did over 30 years ago. I would have thought there was a change, I guess not.

Peace

[Adam]

I'd love to read the rationale behind that, Jeff, thanks for the pointer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'd love to read the rationale behind that, Jeff, thanks for the pointer.

I think Referee magazine had a breakdown of the 72 Olympics too. The article was several years ago.

IIRC, the conclusion was the first attempts were all during a dead ball due to various rules that made the ball dead. As such, the USSR was still due a throwin/possession. If they had made one of the first attempts, the rules should have also canceled that bucket and made them try again. Whether the officials would have rules in such a manner, we'll never know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'd love to read the rationale behind that, Jeff, thanks for the pointer.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think Referee magazine had a breakdown of the 72 Olympics too. The article was several years ago.

IIRC, the conclusion was the first attempts were all during a dead ball due to various rules that made the ball dead. As such, the USSR was still due a throwin/possession. If they had made one of the first attempts, the rules should have also canceled that bucket and made them try again. Whether the officials would have rules in such a manner, we'll never know.

That is kind of how the HBO Documentary broke it down as well. It comes on every now and then and I have seen it more than once. It really explained the rules in place and how the final attempt was actually legal and every other situation was a dead ball. I am not saying this was done correctly; it just appeared that there was more to the story and not the USA spin on the circumstances. And we all have heard teams put spin on what happen to them and not take responsibility for their role in a failure. That being said those were/are some dumb rules.

Peace

[constable]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I don't do FIBA, but having watched a lot of the FIBA stuff on TV, I can almost say the good reason for this is when reporting, you usually have to indicate 1, 2, or 3 FT's, so doing a jersey number 1-3 and then the number of FT's can get confusing to the scorekeeper. Remember, not all of those folks who work the book are 100% knowledgeable about how we report those fouls.

Do you not do this in FED and CCA as well?

Red

32

Block

2 shots

I guess using FIBA's flawed logic that makes sense, but to those who understand basketball it shouldn't.

[Adam]

I don't think he's right, though, otherwise 11, 12, and 13 would all be prohibited as well.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think he's right, though, otherwise 11, 12, and 13 would all be prohibited as well.

I wondered about that till I saw the mechanic explained in a post following yours. There could be very little confusion between 11, 12, and 13, and the number of free throws in that case.

[constable]

Also, why can a player get up to 5 technical fouls? I'd think that if people get 2 technical fouls with the same sort of circumstance he'd be getting a MLB umpire style heave-ho

Originally Posted by constable

Also, why can a player get up to 5 technical fouls? I'd think that if people get 2 technical fouls with the same sort of circumstance he'd be getting a MLB umpire style heave-ho

5 technical fouls? Padgett would have a heart attack!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

5 technical fouls? Padgett would have a heart attack!

Why do you think I refer to them as FEEBLE.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

5 technical fouls? Padgett would have a heart attack!

I would have thought he might have an emotional experience rather than a heart attack.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would have thought he might have an emotional experience rather than a heart attack.

Either way...but he beat me to the punch with his "feeble" response.