Dunk and Hang on Rim (Video)

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

I agree with everyone, lol. Yes, could go either way.

The player CHOSE to dunk the ball going in a forward motion and then hung on the rim for safety. It was his choice. He could have dropped in through the hoop with no rim contact. He chose to put himself in that deleterious position so why should the officials allow him to use the "safety" reason for hanging on the rim? Seems a bit strange to reward someone for making a poor decision.

What poor decision did he make? To dunk the ball hard? Ya he could have dropped it in, or laid it in, or not dunked at all. UNless he's choosing to do something illegal its not a poor choice. Would you not protect the jump shooter because they could have shot a set shot. Or not protect someone shooting a floater because they could have taken a pullup or power layup? Kids taking two wild steps to take an ill advised shot are still entitled to protection under the rules, or does bad footwork now equate no protection?

If kids can make choices about how they shoot the ball and the rules allow/expect them to be able to be protected and land safely . . . just because we don't like hard, showy dunks doesn't mean they get penalized.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What "reward"? You consider being able to grab the rim a reward?

Dunks are legal. Being able to make sure you don't get hurt is, and should be, legal. So what's the problem? Do you want to make it illegal for a player to dunk the ball while running?

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

What poor decision did he make? To dunk the ball hard? Ya he could have dropped it in, or laid it in, or not dunked at all. UNless he's choosing to do something illegal its not a poor choice. Would you not protect the jump shooter because they could have shot a set shot. Or not protect someone shooting a floater because they could have taken a pullup or power layup? Kids taking two wild steps to take an ill advised shot are still entitled to protection under the rules, or does bad footwork now equate no protection?

If kids can make choices about how they shoot the ball and the rules allow/expect them to be able to be protected and land safely . . . just because we don't like hard, showy dunks doesn't mean they get penalized.

Agreed on both.

Luvhoops wrote what some of the other posts were dangerously alluding toward. Its ridiculous to suggest that we should penalize a player for legally protecting himself simply b/c of individual judgement that the dunk was "a poor decision" or "for show" or "unnecessary."

By rule, he legally dunked the ball and is legally allowed to protect himself. Individual opinions on how he chose to legally score the ball are completely irrelevant.

[luvhoops]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Would you not protect the jump shooter because they could have shot a set shot. Or not protect someone shooting a floater because they could have taken a pullup or power layup?

These are actions that are necessary/required based on the defensive position. Yes, set shots were great until the defense began blocking the shots. Thus, the jump shot was required to get the ball beyond/past the defender. The same thing applies to floaters. The defense's action for the offense to do something. This is not the case with dunking the ball, specifically on that play. Yes, dunking is legal but not necessary 99% of the time. In most cases, dunking is a huge waste of physical energy.

In the play, yes, all was legal. The initial guard however should have shot the ball. He made a poor decision by not doing so. The defense did not force him to throw it off the backboard. It was completely choreographed/rehearsed and I can't imagine any real coach agreeing with it. The defense did not force any of this action in fact the offense did. Now, the receiver is decides, on his own, to dunk the ball with two hands and grab the rim with two hands.

What poor decision did he make? The one where he put himself, intentionally, in an unsafe position. He decided to run fast, jump off one leg with great momentum, grab the ball with two hands, dunk the ball, then realize he was in an unsafe position, then hang on the rim.....for safety. Would any coach NOT call that play a poor decision by both offensive players?

The rules allow all of it and it is legal. It just seems weird.

The reward to me is not calling the technical. It just seems weird.

OK, topic done.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

The reward to me is not calling the technical. It just seems weird.

OK, topic done.

The rest of your post is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with officiating or rules application.

And not calling a technical foul is not a "reward." That is a "weird" way to look at our responsibilities as officials.

How about we just adjudicate the game by rules. Your opinion that 99% of dunks are "not necessary" and that "dunking is a huge waste of physical energy" is just that, an opinion, which has NOTHING to do with officiating and is WAY off base anyway. IMO, of course.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

These are actions that are necessary/required based on the defensive position. Yes, set shots were great until the defense began blocking the shots. Thus, the jump shot was required to get the ball beyond/past the defender. The same thing applies to floaters. The defense's action for the offense to do something. This is not the case with dunking the ball, specifically on that play. Yes, dunking is legal but not necessary 99% of the time. In most cases, dunking is a huge waste of physical energy.

In the play, yes, all was legal. The initial guard however should have shot the ball. He made a poor decision by not doing so. The defense did not force him to throw it off the backboard. It was completely choreographed/rehearsed and I can't imagine any real coach agreeing with it. The defense did not force any of this action in fact the offense did. Now, the receiver is decides, on his own, to dunk the ball with two hands and grab the rim with two hands.

What poor decision did he make? The one where he put himself, intentionally, in an unsafe position. He decided to run fast, jump off one leg with great momentum, grab the ball with two hands, dunk the ball, then realize he was in an unsafe position, then hang on the rim.....for safety. Would any coach NOT call that play a poor decision by both offensive players?

The rules allow all of it and it is legal. It just seems weird.

The reward to me is not calling the technical. It just seems weird.

OK, topic done.

So you make an original post who's premise i disagree with in principle. Then you come back with unrelated arugments and issues not connected to any actual rules, or purpose we are trying to serve. Then after this string of nonsense you try to declare the discussion over. Do two things for me:

1) Please do not let my wife know that her style of argument is catching on.

2) Please stop evaluating plays as a coach or as a sports fan in general. Evaluate them as the official. IF I team wants to press, run the grinnell system, chuck up bad threes, good threes, run all their plays for alley oop dunks that is on them. ONe team wants to clutch and grab. One team doesn't want to defend at all. You officiate the game in front of you. You don't reward or punish based on style of play or your sense of how the game should be played.

ps. That Calapari guy who coaches in college and has coached pros . . . he teaches kids to attack the rim and once they activated the help to throw it off the backboard for the weak side to rebound and dunk/ just straight dunk. He's a pretty good coach. I'm not sure a play that excites the home crowd by having a dunk is always a poor decision. I don't know and don't care what kind of shooter each player, I don't know and don't care what kind of offense they run. They play the game, I call the game. I don't penalize players because they choose to make basketball plays that I think aren't the basketball plays they should make.

Sounds like potato created a new account.