Impressive? Sure...(Newbies Heads Up!)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

While this is true, there's no compelling reason that's going to get the various councils, committees, and poohbahs to relinquish control to change rules. Some of the differences are fairly significant (backcourt, for example, between FIBA and NFHS), while others are less so ("intentional" vs "unsporting").

Time outs, for example, are simply a part of the strategy of the American game.

They may be different, but there is no good reason for them to be so. Just pick one and go with it.

The biggest reason they will never merge is that none of the organizaitons would ever want to relinquish any of the control/power they currently have. Even within the NCAA, the men and women have different rules sets.....for no good reason.

[hoopguy]

On this play T to the jumper is what I call but....

I would like the rule to be changed or reworded so that both players get the T. Both are culprits and should be penalized in my opinion.

Who would get the T if one player literally lifted(think cheerleading) the other player by the waist and threw him up to dunk? Still the dunker? I just think they both should be penalized but the way the rule is now I would only penalize one player.

The reality of this play is that it only happens when the game has gotten to be a joke so it really is not a problem to T up both players if you go with that call. I have seen it twice and both were in fool around middle school 'all star' games.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by camron rust

they may be different, but there is no good reason for them to be so. Just pick one and go with it.

The biggest reason they will never merge is that none of the organizaitons would ever want to relinquish any of the control/power they currently have money they generate by selling their own rules and mechanics. Even within the ncaa, the men and women have different rules sets.....for no good reason.

jmho.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I would like the rule to be changed or reworded so that both players get the T. Both are culprits and should be penalized in my opinion.

Nah, that's akin to double jeopardy. (I realize I just set up Billy with a video embed.) Four free throws and the ball on one play? I don't believe that was the rule's intent.

I'd penalize the lifter. By this, you're discouraging the very act of getting on all fours, thereby nipping it in the bud.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

On this play T to the jumper is what I call but....

I would like the rule to be changed or reworded so that both players get the T. Both are culprits and should be penalized in my opinion.

Who would get the T if one player literally lifted(think cheerleading) the other player by the waist and threw him up to dunk? Still the dunker? I just think they both should be penalized but the way the rule is now I would only penalize one player.

The reality of this play is that it only happens when the game has gotten to be a joke so it really is not a problem to T up both players if you go with that call. I have seen it twice and both were in fool around middle school 'all star' games.

The rule already allows for it (10-3-6e) the way it's worded. That said, the NFHS typically wants 1 T for 1 act, even if it's a group act. One is sufficient, and it gets the point across.

You have middle school all star games? Really?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Nah, that's akin to double jeopardy. (I realize I just set up Billy with a video embed.) Four free throws and the ball on one play? I don't believe that was the rule's intent.

I'd penalize the lifter. By this, you're discouraging the very act of getting on all fours, thereby nipping it in the bud.

If I had to guess, I'd say the dunker was the planner in most of these plays. AFAIC, just pick one; I'd pick the one who "did" the most.

1. A2 on all fours while A1 jumps off his back; I'll stick A1.
2. A2 lifts A1 with his hands, I'll stick A2.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. If I knew one had a T already, I might be inclined to give it to the other; but I wouldn't be overly concerned either way.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

On this play T to the jumper is what I call but....

I would like the rule to be changed or reworded so that both players get the T. Both are culprits and should be penalized in my opinion.

Who would get the T if one player literally lifted(think cheerleading) the other player by the waist and threw him up to dunk? Still the dunker? I just think they both should be penalized but the way the rule is now I would only penalize one player.

The reality of this play is that it only happens when the game has gotten to be a joke so it really is not a problem to T up both players if you go with that call. I have seen it twice and both were in fool around middle school 'all star' games.

I don't think this is what the rulemakers wanted... however, the rules do say that it's a T to assist and it's a T to be assisted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't think this is what the rulemakers wanted... however, the rules do say that it's a T to assist and it's a T to be assisted.

In general, you probably will not have one action alone since it is a collaborative act. Given that the rules specify an player technical for both halves of this type of act, I'd think that they actually are saying to penalize each with their own T.

Note, however, that the other collaborative act (locking arms to prevent an opponent from moving) is listed in the team technical section.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In general, you probably will not have one action alone since it is a collaborative act. Given that the rules specify an player technical for both halves of this type of act, I'd think that they actually are saying to penalize each with their own T.

Note, however, that the other collaborative act (locking arms to prevent an opponent from moving) is listed in the team technical section.

This is a case where I wouldn't mind whacking both players for such a stupid act. That mess ain't basketball and is usually only done in a rec type settings or when a game has gotten out of hand and players trying to make a travesty of the game.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why isn't it practical? Many of the differences that do exist have nothing to do with the different end goals of the various levels. It wouldn't be difficult to bring them all into alignment under a single body with sub-sections to differentiate where it makes sense (length of game, 3-point line distance, uniform requirements, etc.).

There is no good reason for any of the basic definitions, fouls, or violations to be any different.

So, you think the NBA will go to 2 20 minute halves? Or should the Fed go to 4 12 minute quarters? Maybe 6 fouls for a DQ in college? Don't tell me the trapezoid is coming!

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

So, you think the NBA will go to 2 20 minute halves? Or should the Fed go to 4 12 minute quarters? Maybe 6 fouls for a DQ in college? Don't tell me the trapezoid is coming!

Trapezoid was done away with in FIBA this past year...so you're safe there!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

So, you think the NBA will go to 2 20 minute halves? Or should the Fed go to 4 12 minute quarters? Maybe 6 fouls for a DQ in college? Don't tell me the trapezoid is coming!

The only "good" reason for not merging most of the rules is the fact that no one will be willing to give up their authority. Some rules, such as timing, foul limits, and even shot clocks, could be chalked up to level of play.

Others, however, such as the significant backcourt differences between FIBA and NFHS or the timeout process, are not. Is FIBA going to change their timeout procedure, or is NFHS?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Trapezoid was done away with in FIBA this past year...so you're safe there!

Now if the NHL could do the same....

[stiffler3492]

So we'd really have two techs and four FT's here?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

So we'd really have two techs and four FT's here?

The rule specifically is under 10-3-6e says: "Climbing on or lifting a teammate for greater height."

I would get the guy that jumped on his back because he did not have to jump on the guys back. Then again you could get the player that is the bigger jerk.

Do not complicate issues, give one T and move on. You really have an option in these cases. It is just a basic loophole in the rules as many things are.

Peace