Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I know this is off-topic, but no less off-topic than your post.
I have no sympathy for a school that insists on keeping its racist mascot despite widespread academic condemnation of it. If you really were concerned about fairness in sports you wouldn't support an organization that so blatantly stereotypes Native Americans.
I agree with King about the timeout issue, and think that there are too many timeouts in general. How about adopting the international rules?
In international basketball, timeouts are only given in dead-ball situations or after made baskets. These are requested at the scorer's table by the coach. Players can't call timeouts at all.
Under this setup, players have more reponsibility for having to make on-court decisions, especially near the end of the game. For example, the coach can't call a timeout to set up a last shot unless there's been a made basket or dead ball. The players have to make those decisions and plays in the heat of the action. More exciting in my book.
I agree that the current rule is pretty arbitrary. I don't know how you feel about lacrosse so I'll not try to convert you (and your readers) but lacrosse provides a similar situation that is analogous to this very conundrum.
Once an offensive team has moved the ball into the offensive scoring area (in lacrosse this is referred to as the restraining box) and chooses to either kill time (or if that team has the lead and less than 2 minutes remain in the game) they are required to "Keep it in the box" as instructed by the officials to prevent stalling. If the offensive team inadvertantly carries the ball out of said restraining box, the possession is awarded to the defensive team (the same could apply here-if the offensive b-ball team simply carried it over the half-line the guy's an idiot and should have the ball awarded to the other team). However, if the ball is dropped or if a defender forces the ball out of the stick of the offender and the ball should leave the restraining box, a player from the offensive team may not regain possession of the ball until a defensive player touches the ball.
So, let's say, in a basketball game, a pass is mishandled or something, and the ball is in the back court, the offensive team cannot touch the ball until it is touched by the defensive team. If the back court situation was predicated by the defensive team touching the ball, I think the same situation should apply: the offensive team could not touch the ball until a defender touched the ball. This gives neither team a free pass as one has to play defense to regain possession, risking a foul, and the other has not gotten the advantage of an inbounds situation.
Could work, but someone would probably just call a timeout.
Too much TV - I am not saying ref talk is a substitute for blowing the whistle or issuing a tech. If something is blatant enough to warrant a tech, by all means call it. But there is so much yapping and body shots inside that a ref could call a foul everytime down on contact. I personally don't want to see a game with 40+ fouls and most of the starters on the bench at the end. The number 1 job of a ref is to impartially control a game. If telling the players to settle down without penalizing either team has that effect, I'm all for it.
My use of the word "end line" seems to be confusing readers, so once again, for those who haven't read all the way back to the start of the letters: All I meant was that if the ball goes over the 10-second line, it's a backcourt violation if the offense recovers it, regardless of who touched it last. If the defense touches it first, it's a live ball. If the offense touches it first, it's a backcourt violation. The only thing that would change is the rule "that's not a backcourt violation because the defense touched it last" would go away.
nhogan: Any thoughts? Should a team be allowed to opt-out of shooting free throws in a bonus situation, if they'd prefer the chance to inbound?
I'm all for anything that reduces free throws, so yes. My actual solution, stunning in its elegance and brilliance, is to eliminate free throws.
as a florida fan, when we get on CBS, we always get these two guys. i like them. billy packer reminds me of a nice grandpa who happens to know a lot a basketball. it's only at tourney time, as you get all the randoms coming out of the CBS broadcaster woodwork, that i see how much better these guys are than most.
>>>>"...which I picked on the theory that it's rarely a terrible idea to go against Florida in the NCAA Tournament.">>>>
i hope you are currently eating those words, eat them again when the gators crush georgetown, and when they make it to teh final four befor epossibly beating uconn to go to the championship! the fact that you keep judging this team on the past 4 years teams' play is a trvesty
Thanks for clarifying the thing about the end line--that was confusing. I still don't like the idea, though. It'll create a situation where the defender just tries to poke the ball away--I don't think that's enough of a defensive play to be rewarded with possession. As it stands, it's a live, loose ball, and if th defense can get to it first, it's theirs. That seems like quite enough of a reward.
So it looks like pretty much no one, myself included, likes the timeout-while-diving-out-of-bounds rule (weren't refs supposed to be going a little tougher on this a couple years back?) But I have to disagree with King on another of his complaints, calling timeout on an inbounds play.
It seems to me that doing that is analagous to football, where an offense can call timeout if the play clock's about to expire or the defense suddenly jumps into something the QB doesn't recognize. No one seems too concerned about that, so why is it such a big deal if a player calls a timeout to avoid a 5-second call on an inbound?
As for Billy Packer, count me among the haters. He knows the game, no question, but I always feel as though he's trying to make sure we know how much he knows. And I can't stand the way he sometimes picks out one minor aspect of a game and harps on it repeatedly (did anyone see all the alleged palming violations he did during Arizona-Villanova?). It feels like Nantz is his enabler sometimes, too, never calling on him to defend his position.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
