From one of our local pundits

[bainsey]

Stupid? I don't think so. Heavily flawed? Absolutely. And, the foundation lies in this myopic myth from the article...

A point arrives when the penalty for an infraction has a greater impact on the final score than the infraction itself.

Here's are two realities of basketball I've come to learn:
*A game is never decided by one play. It is always decided by the totality of the 32/40/48 minutes (plus overtime, if applicable). If one play decided a game, you wouldn't need the other minutes.

*Every single time there's a one-point game, without exception, it's inevitable that the officials have done something -- via action or inaction -- to affect the outcome. Way too much goes on within the game's time span not to be the case.

So, why do we buy into this myth? It really comes down to human memory capacity. We can only remember so much, and we just can't take in all 60-100 possessions. Therefore, when a controversial call happens in a game's closing minutes, it's still typically fresh in people's minds. However, if a call is kicked in the first half, people get mad for 5-10 seconds, but just move onto the next play.

In truth, the smaller the score's margin, the greater chance an official's rulings -- be they in the beginning, middle, or end of a game -- will affect that game's outcome. While those look at Notre Dame/Xavier, I guarantee you that there were rulings in other close games that affected that game just as much.

[APG]

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

I agree, with the exception of a violation by the shooter.

[APG]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

I agree, with the exception of a violation by the shooter.

If the free throw shooter entered in early after releasing the ball, I wouldn't have an issue there either if he makes the free throw.

Things like faking a throw and actually shooting the ball on the line, I'd say enforce when violated.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

I don't agree with that concept. The rule should stay as written if the offense violates first. It wouldn't matter if the defense violates thats what the delayed signal is for.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Is that not the case with the delay signal? Or am I missing the point?

Only for defensive lane violations. Offensive should, by rule, called immediately when the player commits the violation.

[APG]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I don't agree with that concept. The rule should stay as written if the offense violates first. It wouldn't matter if the defense violates thats what the delayed signal is for.

Why? What advantage did the Xavier kid gain by entering in early on a made free throw?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why? What advantage did the Xavier kid gain by entering in early on a made free throw?

It doesn't matter he left before the release from the shooter. He should been disciplined enough not to do that. It may have been a delay on the official behalf to process and make the call but it was the right call.

There is an requirement for the defense make or miss the same must apply for the offense as well.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why? What advantage did the Xavier kid gain by entering in early on a made free throw?

There may be unintended consequences, such as more players crashing the boards early, taking a risk they won't get caught, and knowing they wouldn't be penalized, anyway, if the shot it good. The point of the rule is to prevent such early crashes.

[APG]

Originally Posted by truerookie

It doesn't matter he left before the release from the shooter. He should been disciplined enough not to do that. It may have been a delay on the official behalf to process and make the call but it was the right call.

There is an requirement for the defense make or miss the same must apply for the offense as well.

I'm not talking bout that actual ruling in the Xavier game and whether it should have or not been called. It was a clear and obvious violation and had to be called. Doesn't mean I don't think the rule is stupid.

Originally Posted by bainsey

There may be unintended consequences, such as more players crashing the boards early, taking a risk they won't get caught, and knowing they wouldn't be penalized, anyway, if the shot it good. The point of the rule is to prevent such early crashes.

Then call the foul. Even then, I doubt it would lead to what you propose.

As is, someone mentioned in another thread that the FIBA rule for free throws is the same as what I propose. They don't seem to have an issue with it.

[icallfouls]

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There may be unintended consequences, such as more players crashing the boards early, taking a risk they won't get caught, and knowing they wouldn't be penalized, anyway, if the shot it good. The point of the rule is to prevent such early crashes.

I believe the point of the rule is for the player not to gain a rebounding advantage. While I don't mind either way, I do hate when players, coaches, and/or fans yell that the defense left early, and I'm sitting in the middle of the court with a fist out to the side. Maybe if there is consistency between defense and offense violations we won't hear the grumbles. Most likely we will still hear it, and probably more since we won't be blowing our whistle immediately on half of them.

[Zeebra]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

This is exactly how it is played under the FIBA rule set. The only person who can violate on a MADE FT is the shooter. All other violations are ignored if the FT is good.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

.... the FIBA rule!

[Andy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Stupid? I don't think so. Heavily flawed? Absolutely. And, the foundation lies in this myopic myth from the article...



Here's are two realities of basketball I've come to learn:
*A game is never decided by one play. It is always decided by the totality of the 32/40/48 minutes (plus overtime, if applicable). If one play decided a game, you wouldn't need the other minutes.

*Every single time there's a one-point game, without exception, it's inevitable that the officials have done something -- via action or inaction -- to affect the outcome. Way too much goes on within the game's time span not to be the case.

So, why do we buy into this myth? It really comes down to human memory capacity. We can only remember so much, and we just can't take in all 60-100 possessions. Therefore, when a controversial call happens in a game's closing minutes, it's still typically fresh in people's minds. However, if a call is kicked in the first half, people get mad for 5-10 seconds, but just move onto the next play.

In truth, the smaller the score's margin, the greater chance an official's rulings -- be they in the beginning, middle, or end of a game -- will affect that game's outcome. While those look at Notre Dame/Xavier, I guarantee you that there were rulings in other close games that affected that game just as much.

I could also argue that a missed three-point shot with 7 minutes left in the first half doesn't have as much affect on the fnal score than a missed three-point shot with 1 second left in the game with a team down by two points.....

Why is it always about the referees and what they do or don't do over this course of the game and not the players?!?!?

What fans fail to realize is that we as officials are not making stuff up, we are responding to the players actions to offciate the game.