Sign of things to come

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Or if it discourages him/her from trying to get the next rebound because it was too risky (rough play), that is also a foul.

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you on this.

Are you saying that a foul should be called if I judge that a player may not want to go get the next rebound because the player thinks the play that just happened is too rough?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you on this.

Are you saying that a foul should be called if I judge that a player may not want to go get the next rebound because the player thinks the play that just happened is too rough?

I think that is what he is saying...Camron will correct me if I am wrong, but we always call it the "3 minutes later" principle. As in, if I don't call that now, what will this game be like in 3 minutes?

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Are you saying that a foul should be called if I judge that a player may not want to go get the next rebound because the player thinks the play that just happened is too rough?

No, he's saying rough play should always be cleaned up and one of the benefits of cleaning it up is players won't be afraid to try to get rebounds because of rough play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I think that is what he is saying...Camron will correct me if I am wrong, but we always call it the "3 minutes later" principle. As in, if I don't call that now, what will this game be like in 3 minutes?

Yep.

Originally Posted by AremRed

No, he's saying rough play should always be cleaned up and one of the benefits of cleaning it up is players won't be afraid to try to get rebounds because of rough play.

And....Yep.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you on this.

Are you saying that a foul should be called if I judge that a player may not want to go get the next rebound because the player thinks the play that just happened is too rough?

If he is hesitant to go for a board because he is getting the crap beat of of him, yes. The fact that the right team gets the rebound is not always a reason to avoid calling the foul. It can be much of the time, but not as much as some take it. Sometimes, the contact just shouldn't be part of the game of basketball.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If he is hesitant to go for a board because he is getting the crap beat of of him, yes.

Then he shouldn't be playing basketball in the first place!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Then he shouldn't be playing basketball in the first place!

No, he shouldn't be playing football.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, he shouldn't be playing football.

Ok Camron, whatever you think. I have never seen a kid at the HS or college level afraid to go after a rebound because of previous physical play. Kids that would be afraid of potential rough play during rebounding situations are weeded out of the game long before they get to that level.

I don't disagree with you that there are times a whistle is needed to clean up certain things or prevent things from escalating, but the idea that there are going to be players too scared to go after a rebound because of previous or potential rough play is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by johnny d

Ok Camron, whatever you think. I have never seen a kid at the HS or college level afraid to go after a rebound because of previous physical play. Kids that would be afraid of potential rough play during rebounding situations are weeded out of the game long before they get to that level.

I don't disagree with you that there are times a whistle is needed to clean up certain things or prevent things from escalating, but the idea that there are going to be players too scared to go after a rebound because of previous or potential rough play is just ridiculous.

I hear you johnny d but I don't think Camron's view is any less valid than yours. He just has a different way of looking at clean-up fouls that's all.

I could certainly see a player thinking "I went to get a rebound last time and got popped in the chin and they didn't call it" and not going after the next one.

Regardless, rough play should be cleaned up no matter what justification you use.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I hear you johnny d but I don't think Camron's view is any less valid than yours. He just has a different way of looking at clean-up fouls that's all.

I could certainly see a player thinking "I went to get a rebound last time and got popped in the chin and they didn't call it" and not going after the next one.

Regardless, rough play should be cleaned up no matter what justification you use.

I agree with cleaning up the rough play. The issue proposed by Cameron though is that the standard for rough be determined by the physical and mental toughness of the kids involved in the game. The fact that somone doesn't like that amount of contact doesn't make the play rough.

We see teams all the time with all the god given athleticism in the world but who for whatever reason don't play very fundamentally and very often play teams athletic enough to use fundamental skills to compete with them. Suddenly they get into a game where on every play every player is getting boxed out, every cut/ post is being denied, every player is being closed out and the opponent is willing to put themselves in position to force block charge calls instead of opening up and letting them go.

They don't like it. Its more contact then they are used to and they are frustrated by it. That doesn't mean the game is too rough. This is not specifically what Cameron is talking about but if we apply the idea of the player not wanting to play through that much contact as a standard suddenly perfectly legal plays in anyother game become fouls because the other team doesn't like it or want to be touched.

The official has to be the determinant of adv/disadv and of what is or is not rough play. Not the willingness of coaches, players or fans.

The flip side is true also just because two kids or teams are willing to go at each other doesn't mean we have to let them be out of control just because they both want to play that way and for the most part can handle it.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I have never seen a kid at the HS or college level afraid to go after a rebound because of previous physical play.... too scared to go after a rebound because of previous or potential rough play is just ridiculous.

I have. Not "afraid" or "scared". But hesitant. Such hesitancy, when due to no-calls on rough play when calls were, by rule and by a proper feel for the game, justified = advantage to illegally rough team, disadvantage to team abiding by the rules.
Just a thought.
And, I reserve the right to be wrong.

[Freddy]

Camp last weekend first experience with "enter on release" since back in the late '70's or so.
Need for tactful preventative officiating reminders not to enter early was same as with old rule. "Enter when legal" was again the phrase that curbed early entry the best.
Just as many early entry violations called as according to the old rule.
No uptick in rough play that I could detect, and I was lookin'.
Entry by players beyond the arc prior to the attempt hitting the rim occurred, not so much to gain an advantage, but because of players' unfamiliarity with the difference in the rule between lane line players and shooter/others.
All in all, didn't make much a difference in any significant way. I did notice lazy and slow lane line players put themselves at more of a disadvantage due to their laziness and slowness, not because of any illegalities on the part of opponents.