FIBA and the Possession Arrow

[Hawks Coach]

I call that revisionist history, but it's their story, so let them tell it! I think if you look close, you will see a player making the TO sign on the sideline, so I doubt he was saying no TO! Also, saying don't call timeout is always taking the risk that the word don't is not heard in the heat of battle, which leaves you with a very different instruction.

Bottom line is that of all the things you want players doing, near the bottom of my list is tracking TOs used over the course of a game. Coaching staff needs to do that. In any close game, I make it a point to let them know as the game gets near the end that we have all of our time outs, or 1 TO. Michigan did use it's last TO previously, and Fisher failed to emphasize during the TO that it was their last. Webber's TO was the result of an error, not the actual error.

[Bobby]

The arrow is the most ludicrous rule:

During the 2003 NCAA Tournament, games were decided unfairly by a team having the alternating possession arrow. One team would have the arrow late in the game when a crucial jump ball was called, and the team with the arrow won each game. One NCAA Tournament Final (1994 Women’s - Richmond) was decided by the arrow, as a team received the inbound and took the winning shot on the arrow with less than three seconds remaining.

Good defense is not rewarded. Should a defensive player cause a jump ball, it is his prerogative to gain control of the ball for his team on the ensuing jump ball.

On a tap-off between a short and tall guy, if the shorter person has a better vertical leap and can time it precisely, he steals the tap. Furthermore, if a teams are lined up properly outside the circle, the team with the shorter player can simply take positions on the face-off to favour his team, and if the taller guy puts poor "english" on the jump, the shorter guy's team can take the ball. Furthermore, the taller player is easier to commit the old bugaboo of taking the tap before the ball crosses the peak.

Having a game determined by luck goes against what sport means, when skill and fundamentals determine the winner.

Many coaches and analysts (Dick Vitale most notably) have said the jump ball is the fairest way to decide a held ball.

If the officials use the ice hockey 20-second faceoff rule on a basketball jump ball, it would be very quick to resume play -- get the two players in the circle, signal substitutions, and throw it up in under 20 seconds.

Responsibility is also lost.

Also, one common procedure in college is for a player to take the ball and call the time out just to avoid a violation by arrow. This can't happen in FIBA. That's also a concern.

The NBA is right. Don't settle a dispute by luck. Take a tap.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Bobby
Many coaches and analysts (Dick Vitale most notably) have said the jump ball is the fairest way to decide a held ball.

Well that settles it then, because we know that Dick Vitale is never wrong!

[JugglingReferee]

I like the APA rule and I like the JB too.

Hmmm... how about this:

All held ball sitch's are AP until the final two minutes of the game. Two minutes and under, go with the JB. And, allow any on court player to take the jump.

Mike

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Bobby
Also, one common procedure in college is for a player to take the ball and call the time out just to avoid a violation by arrow.

What's wrong with requesting a timeout to avoid a violation? I would agree that it would need to be changed if each team received an unlimited number of timeouts, but the amount of timeouts each team receives is finite. If they want to trade one for avoiding a violation, they should be able to do so. It's no different than requesting a timeout as you are falling OOB with the ball. It's a good rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

What's wrong with requesting a timeout to avoid a violation? I would agree that it would need to be changed if each team received an unlimited number of timeouts, but the amount of timeouts each team receives is finite. If they want to trade one for avoiding a violation, they should be able to do so. It's no different than requesting a timeout as you are falling OOB with the ball. It's a good rule.

And...who gets to make the judgment that the kid was requesting TO in order to avoid a TO vs. a TO to setup a play? That's certainly not our place to decide how a team uses their timeouts.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I like the APA rule and I like the JB too.

Hmmm... how about this:

All held ball sitch's are AP until the final two minutes of the game. Two minutes and under, go with the JB. And, allow any on court player to take the jump.

Mike

How about we play an All-Star game to determine who gets the ball?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

How about we play an All-Star game to determine who gets the ball?

And this time, the posession arrow will count!!

[Bobby]

Argentina has already been the first major FIBA victim of the arrow. A Manu Ginobili three-point attempt was lodged between the rim and backboard when they were down three with under a minute remaining.

Arrowball!

Venezuela got the ball on the arrow and won the game solely on the arrow.

[williebfree]

This is NOT meant to be a personal attack toward anyone. In fact, I even catch myself falling into this mindset on occasion.

I am discouraged when I hear players, coaches, and fans make comments to the effect of.. "We could have won that game if the official did not call (insert violation/foul here) with X seconds left." Additionally, I am appalled when I hear an "off-court" official make a judgmental jeer about another official's call, especially when it is related to the impact of a "final moments" call. Why?

Simply, it demonstrates ignorance on behalf of the person making the observation. It means that they are not taking into account the impact of a multitude plays throughout of the whole game. Yes, plays that occur during the final seconds of the game are important, but so is the missed lay-up on the opening tip-off, missed FTs in the 2nd qtr, travelling, double-dribbles, etc... These should also be viewed as having just as much impact to the outcome of the game. (I know I will get arguements on this... )

Bottom line: Focusing on the final plays of the game and claiming they won or lost the game solely, is wrong. Therefore, the AP is just a tiny part of the game. Interestingly enough, it is one of the more consistent elements of the game.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Bobby


Venezuela got the ball on the arrow and won the game solely on the arrow.

So.....Venezuela didn't make any baskets during the entire game, but won because the arrow pointed their way at a certain point.

Yeah - that makes sense.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Bobby
Argentina has already been the first major FIBA victim of the arrow. A Manu Ginobili three-point attempt was lodged between the rim and backboard when they were down three with under a minute remaining.

Arrowball!

Venezuela got the ball on the arrow and won the game solely on the arrow.

Arrows do not vicitmize teams. Teams play the game and make mistakes, and the arrow delivers a consistent result on a no possession, no advantage situation. If there was a jump ball rule Venezuela had the best jumper and won every jump ball (including one with a few seconds left), you could make a more plausible argument that somebody got hosed by an unfair rule. AP always evens out, so nobody gets an advantage. Maybe Argentina needed a few more points in the rest of the game. Maybe being three down in the last minute is not the best strategic position to be in if you want to win a critical basketball game.

By the way, I guess you must be assuming they win the jump, hit the three, tie the game, play great defense preventing a score, and win in overtime, therefore they got shafted? That's a lot of ifs, especially considering Ginobli missed the tying three in the first place, hence the AP situation. Why not conclude that Ginobli failed to hit the big shot? And if Ginobli's miss had careened OOB, would Argentina have been hosed by an unfair OOB rule that penalizes you for having a ball take an unluck bounce off the rim in the last minute of a game?

[Rich]

I see there are strong feelings about this, but my personal feeling is that there is already one too many jump balls in a game. The opening tap is traditional, I know, but I remember that some states used to (maybe they still do) used a coin flip at the start of HS games to determine possession. It wouldn't make me cry if basketball went to this, but that won't ever happen universally.

Every time I work with a partner who wants to be the R, I let him. Every time a partner tells me to kill it if his toss isn't good -- I smile, nod, and then tell myself it would have to be behind one of the players before I'd blow it down. It's just a way to put the ball in play, and it's not even a good one.

Of course, if the jump ball was to return to NFHS play then the part about a jump ending when a ball hits a backboard would make sense again.

Rich