FIBA vs. NBA/NCAA/NFHS

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think the FT violation penalties are inequitable. I think the soccer has it at least partially right. If the shot ends in a preferred manner for the violating team (make for the offense, miss for the defense), reshoot. If the shot ends in an undesirable manner for the violating team, let it stand....which we already do for defensive violations. For offensive violations on miss, we'd probably need to award the ball to the defense since the offense probably got a rebounding advantage by violating.

Yeah, I could see that. Then, perhaps, a double violation would make more sense than what now is essentially ignoring the defensive side and punishing only the offense when more FTs are to follow.

Do it your way on single violations. On double violations, cancel the whole shot and move on to what's next.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, I could see that. Then, perhaps, a double violation would make more sense than what now is essentially ignoring the defensive side and punishing only the offense when more FTs are to follow.

Do it your way on single violations. On double violations, cancel the whole shot and move on to what's next.

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

The only problem I can see, which is minor, would be that this would increase the number of violations we get when non-shooters come into the lane late. Right now, they know they can't do it at all (some still do occasionally, but hardly ever at the JV level and above). But if we make it so it doesn't matter on some shots, they'll forget occasionally.

Not a major deal, and I can't think of a reason not to go along with that suggestion.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'd even go so far as to say that on the 1st of multiple shots, no violations aside from shooter violations or disconcertion would be possible. Exactly what advantage does any player get from violating on a shot that can't be rebounded?

If the ball is to remain dead after the free throw is completed, this is how they handle it in the NBA.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What's a meter?

Nothing. What's a meter with you?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

If the ball is to remain dead after the free throw is completed, this is how they handle it in the NBA.

Well, in that case, it can't possibly be a good idea. I don't know what came over me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, in that case, it can't possibly be a good idea. I don't know what came over me.

It'll pass.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Having the coaches deal with the table for TOs is great - there's no "timeout! timeout! timeout!" as a player with control just touches out of bounds.

I can see the positives from this but I actually prefer it the way it is for NBA/NCAA/NFHS. I definitely don't think it would be applied well at the NFHS level or at the D-3 (and some D-2) level because that would require a table that pays attention and, well...

I wouldn't be against only allowing players to call time out. It eliminates the "Time out! Time out!" thing with coaches - at least in regards to us - and we normally will see a player when he/she requests a time out.

[APG]

With regard to not whistling a shot clock violation if the defense gets immediate clear control:

There would be issues with timing rules. Under NBA rules, a team is only allowed a flat 24 seconds, from the time they get possession, if they commit a shot clock violation. This is especially of importance in late game situations:

Say there's 27.7 when Team A inbounds the ball with a fresh 24. A1 releases a field goal attempt before the buzzer but fails to cause the ball to hit the basket ring. B2 rebounds the ball with clear and immediate possession of the ball with 1.7 left on the clock.

FIBA: Play on as Team B has gotten clear and immediate possession of the ball thus no violation. This ends up not rewarding good defense. Also, under FIBA rules, since there are no live ball timeouts, basically Team B has to throw up a 3/4 shot. Basically, under FIBA rules, we're going to see end of game fouling, rather than the defense attempt to "play it out," with a lot more time left, not unlike NCAA-M.

NBA: Shot clock violation. Officials will reset the clock to 3.7 seconds. And now Team B, being rewarded for their good defense, will also be allowed to call a timeout and advance the ball to the 28' mark with a full 3.7 on the clock.

It's clear that the NBA doesn't want the offense taking more than 24 seconds off the clock (give or take a couple of tenths when they aren't clearly shown on the game clock) if they commit a shot clock violation as officials will correct this at any point in the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

With regard to not whistling a shot clock violation if the defense gets immediate clear control:

There would be issues with timing rules. Under NBA rules, a team is only allowed a flat 24 seconds, from the time they get possession, if they commit a shot clock violation. This is especially of importance in late game situations:

Say there's 27.7 when Team A inbounds the ball with a fresh 24. A1 releases a field goal attempt before the buzzer but fails to cause the ball to hit the basket ring. B2 rebounds the ball with clear and immediate possession of the ball with 1.7 left on the clock.

FIBA: Play on as Team B has gotten clear and immediate possession of the ball thus no violation. This ends up not rewarding good defense. Also, under FIBA rules, since there are no live ball timeouts, basically Team B has to throw up a 3/4 shot. Basically, under FIBA rules, we're going to see end of game fouling, rather than the defense attempt to "play it out," with a lot more time left, not unlike NCAA-M.

NBA: Shot clock violation. Officials will reset the clock to 3.7 seconds. And now Team B, being rewarded for their good defense, will also be allowed to call a timeout and advance the ball to the 28' mark with a full 3.7 on the clock.

It's clear that the NBA doesn't want the offense taking more than 24 seconds off the clock (give or take a couple of tenths when they aren't clearly shown on the game clock) if they commit a shot clock violation as officials will correct this at any point in the game.

None of that really matters.....24 seconds is really just an arbitrary threshold. If they wanted a team to take no more than 24 seconds, the would require it to hit the rim by 24 seconds but they don't.

24 seconds was chosen solely in an effort to achieve a certain number of points per game.....that's all.

Sure, it would change the result of a few plays, but it does so in a way that doesn't really matter.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

None of that really matters.....24 seconds is really just an arbitrary threshold. If they wanted a team to take no more than 24 seconds, the would require it to hit the rim by 24 seconds but they don't.

24 seconds was chosen solely in an effort to achieve a certain number of points per game.....that's all.

Sure, it would change the result of a few plays, but it does so in a way that doesn't really matter.

Whether arbitrary or not, it doesn't matter. The NBA doesn't want teams taking more than 24 seconds if they commit a shot clock violation. It's how their rule and subsequent case book plays are written out. They even go so far as to correct the game clock very early in the game. For example, if a team opens the 2nd quarter committing a shot clock violation (with no resets) with 11:34 on the clock, you best believe they'll reset the clock to 11:36.

Those few plays are why the rule change would not be implemented in the NBA.

Side note:

24 seconds was picked by dividing 2880 seconds (number of seconds in a 48 minute game) by 120 shots between the two teams (Danny Biasone, Syracuse Nationals owner figured this to be the "sweet spot" between stall ball and a "wild shootout.")

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

None of that really matters.....24 seconds is really just an arbitrary threshold. If they wanted a team to take no more than 24 seconds, the would require it to hit the rim by 24 seconds but they don't.

24 seconds was chosen solely in an effort to achieve a certain number of points per game.....that's all.

Sure, it would change the result of a few plays, but it does so in a way that doesn't really matter.

My research long ago showed that some man way back in the 50s divided the length of a game by the number of possessions in a typical. His result led to the common 24 second shot clock.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I can see the positives from this but I actually prefer it the way it is for NBA/NCAA/NFHS. I definitely don't think it would be applied well at the NFHS level or at the D-3 (and some D-2) level because that would require a table that pays attention and, well...

I wouldn't be against only allowing players to call time out. It eliminates the "Time out! Time out!" thing with coaches - at least in regards to us - and we normally will see a player when he/she requests a time out.

You might be right.

However, I would invite you to referee a season of FIBA before making that determination. :P

As for the table dealing with TOs, two things:

• it was tough the first year or two they brought it in, but at this point, I have very rare table issues now
• it will bring chseagle back!

[APG]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

My research long ago showed that some man way back in the 50s divided the length of a game by the number of possessions in a typical. His result led to the common 24 second shot clock.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Side note:

24 seconds was picked by dividing 2880 seconds (number of seconds in a 48 minute game) by 120 shots between the two teams (Danny Biasone, Syracuse Nationals owner figured this to be the "sweet spot" between stall ball and a "wild shootout.")

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Whether arbitrary or not, it doesn't matter. The NBA doesn't want teams taking more than 24 seconds if they commit a shot clock violation. It's how their rule and subsequent case book plays are written out. They even go so far as to correct the game clock very early in the game. For example, if a team opens the 2nd quarter committing a shot clock violation (with no resets) with 11:34 on the clock, you best believe they'll reset the clock to 11:36.

Those few plays are why the rule change would not be implemented in the NBA.

Side note:

24 seconds was picked by dividing 2880 seconds (number of seconds in a 48 minute game) by 120 possessions between the two teams (Danny Biasone, Syracuse Nationals owner figured this to be the "sweet spot" between stall ball and a "wild shootout.")

APG:

Dang, you beat me to it. I am getting old (which MTD, Jr., and Andy keep reminding me). LOL

But one should remember that the FIBA shot clock has not always been 24 seconds; in fact it is a relatively recent change (withing the last 8 years I think). Originally it was 30 seconds and that is why the NCAA Women's shot clock is 30 seconds because the NAGWS Basketball Rules for women's college basketball was based upon FIBA Rules which used a 30 second shot clock.

MTD, Sr.