Column: ... scoring could increase if rules were applied instead of interpreted
 

Link to column.

For what it's worth, this writer once wore stripes, so he knows significantly more about what we do than others.

I'd say he has forgotten about incidental contact and advantage/disadvantage.

Red does not necessarily follow from blue.

He mentions "incidental contact," but he clearly doesn't understand that it's an entire rule.

Remember, it's a section of Rule 4 not a rule itself. I think he does understand it, specifically 4-27-3, he just phrased it incorrectly. Whether we agree with his hard-line view is another story.

I've heard discussions about the little bumps on offensive players as they go through the lane in IAABO and NCAAW meetings for years. He's right in that the size of players has changed the way the game is called on all levels. I think a major change was the rise of the Detroit Pistons in the late '80s and the Pat Riley Knicks in the '90s. That bump and grind style basically dared officials to call fouls on every play. They/we didn't so the players bulked up. The style filtered down to the college level (anyone remember the Big East going to six fouls for a DQ?) and eventually to H.S., though to a lesser extent.

When I look at videos of games from the dark ages when I was in college (mid-80s) there definitely wasn't as much contact allowed and the players adjusted accordingly. I don't think you can turn the clock back completely but catching a few more screens, hand checks and bumps here and there would probably boost scoring a bit.

Scoring could also increase if players made a higher pct of FTs and discovered that not all points need to be scored from outside the arc or inside the paint.

We should never be surprised when a "sports journalist" gets on a soapbox about anything these days. I think sports journalists are the worst in all of journalism because they can literally say things without having to prove certain facts. If he officiated before he should have the ability to read an actual rulebook and realize that most of what he is talking about has an actual definition in rather detail.

Peace

True, but he did mention those factors - at least the three-point FG aspect of things.

Less team play has an effect as well. I see more kids standing around on the court now than I did in the past. When players stand still they're easier to guard.

The ESPN factor cannot be overlooked. Players try to make every play look fantastic and the basics are forgotten. Had one game this weekend which must have had 50 free throws. If 20 were made, I would be surprised. Had another which involved a team that hustled on defense and was totally unselfish on offense. Pick and roll. Give and go on a fast break. They destroyed their opponents and didn't need a single dipsy-do or NBA 3 pointer.

An unselfish team will score a lot of points if they have the basics, hustle on defense, and shoot well from the line. The 50 FT game could easily have been won by either team had they shot 50% from the line. It would have been a laugher if they hit 75%. It has more to do with coaching than officiating.;)

Lost art of the mid-range jumper? It's only worth two points and def no (tv)air time.

Don't see any mention of the shot clock here. While it may bring quicker shots, they sometimes are not better shots. I think it has had an effect on the offensive quality of games. Standing around happens when the "go to" guy has the ball with SC winding down...

Semantics. The point is, it's a rule, not a phrase buried in a rule or a term made up out of cheese cloth.

And I don't think he understands it. If this guy "wore stripes," he didn't do it for long enough to understand what "advantage/disadvantage" really means. He had probably only advanced to the self-righteous "a foul is a foul" stage where he calls the wrist slap as A1 blows by B1, or he calls the bump at the division line as A2 is catching a pass for a wide open layup.

That's one of my arguments against the shot clock. For kids who will play college ball - especially Division I - it may be okay but for the millions of others who won't I think it leads to lousy shots.

That being said, I don't know if Maine has a shot clock which may be why it's not mentioned in the article.

I disagree if only because he addressed a certain scenario: contact on cutters which slows down or disrupts the offense which may or may not be illegal. Again, we may not agree with his premise and he also may not present it well but it's enough of a concern at the H.S. and NCAA level that it gets mentioned under POE in the rule books every year. Do I think we should call every little bump? Of course not and if that's what he's calling for he needs to go back to the drawing board.

If only sports journalism is the worst of journalism. At leasts its contained to sports and can't destroy a person or a country like the major news outlets that broadcast outright lies and never rarely has to prove its stories.

I agree that sports is not the most important thing in most people's lives and never should be, but things to change based on what these guys say. Organizations and sometimes the participants try to make changes based on these kinds of opinions. And if journalist did not apply some standards at a major paper with showing facts or knowing basic information, they would be fired. It is sad that a guy can make a statement like this and the public goes in more uninformed by thinking officials are just making stuff up, but not understanding the rules he just referenced.

Peace