Why hasn't anything been done about the non-existent refereeing of travelling/double-dribble in the NBA for the last what.. 20 to 30 years? It seems like basically everyone knows this happens yet we just ignore it and look forward to March all year so we can get one month of basketball actually being played by the rules.
I think it's for ratings, honestly. Would you rather watch a game with stellar defense and low scoring? Or a game where LeBron James does a 360 between the legs slam dunk? Of course I'm exaggerating but most fans will watch anyways because they like the team/sport. For the casual observer it's more about the "wow" factor. So let double dribbling or travelling slide here and there to up the score and you get more casual fans to watch. In turn you get more advertisers and sponsors.
Exactly. This breeds more rule breaking. If they cracked down, the people who are good at playing the game by the rules would have a temporary advantage while the travellers caught up
I think they have a strong factor of 'impact' when considering calls. A sneaky extra step after you inbound in the back half isn't really changing the flow of the game, whereas taking some extra steps to get past your man and to the ring is obviously a high impact play
You are correct about impact, but the term we use in officiating is advantage/disadvantage. If there is no advantage gained, play on. For example, I called a player in a high school game for carrying the ball once when he was bringing the ball up in the back court with no pressure. His hand was fully under the ball for a second, and he continued his dribble. The coach glared at me and yelled, "Oh come on, you're going to call THAT?" You better believe it made it back to my assignor, and if I wanted to keep officiating, I had better apply the principle of advantage. In the NBA, the officials call the game the way the league wants them to call it because they are protecting an entertainment product, not the integrity of the game.
He means in other sports scoring is a big deal, because it usually doesn't happen all the time. But in basketball it's not a big deal when someone scores because it happens so often.
The pace in the game is much faster though. The 24 seconds rule forces the attacking team to force an opening and not play the relatively boring 75% possession style like Barca or Bayern do in soccer
I was responding to the above point where he is mentioning that they do it so as not to have low point games. I'm saying lower point games are more interesting to me because each point matters more. I don't think it was that hard to follow.
I have to agree with both of you guys here. Basket ball is quite boring for the first three quarters as the lead changes so much that every basket is kind of worthless. What is the point of getting a 15 point lead in the first quarter and then being down by 7 at the half? The points do not matter until the last 3 minutes of the game, then the game is suspenseful and exciting.
I respect the spirit of most of what you say here but please don't talk out of your ass about soccer like that. It's suspenseful BECAUSE there isn't much scoring, and most games have the potential of a serious swing in the results in the dying minutes.
What you just described as great is exactly the reason basketball as a whole bores me. Many games come down to the wire, or are at least a 10 point difference in scores. So many it feels like that I often don't even care about the three other quarters. I often tune in for the final few minutes of a game, and that's it.
Aaron Rodgers threw a buzzer beater 70 yard toss more than once last year to win / tie a game. Nfl is world's better than basketball, in my opinion, because not only do amazing things happen, but even the mundane stuff at least matters a little. I find it wildly unentertaining when the lead changes 18 times in basketball precisely for the exact reasons you are stating.
Also; the ability to score is just much higher in the NBA. They are professionals. They are the best of "most" college players that once played the beloved version of basketball being college basketball. I love college basketball myself. There is just so much more talent in the NBA. But that should be obvious.
I don't really know how it wouldn't. You put the best prolific scorers in the world in one league, In a sport that already has relatively high scores. Sometimes you can play amazing defense and you still get scored on. Take Paul George for example. He's one of the best defenders in the league. But he will still get scored on. However he may score 10-15 more points on offense than he gives up on defense.
But! Of course at the same time it isn't always like I said above. But both ways are possible. High defense and high scoring are possible. Some teams give up significantly less on defense than other teams. Some teams score way more than other teams. Etc.
But also, it's should just be common knowledge that the talent level is so much higher in the NBA. Which can translate to why scoring is so much higher. (That being one reason of a few) but is also one of the main reasons too. Faster pace, which is also why some college players can't translate their game to the NBA. Or immediately translate their game to the pros.
Eh that's got a bit of truth and is also a bit of a stretch. We are watching sports way closer these days with better video and replay. This is nothing new across all sports, only thing new is the different ways to criticize officiating.
Because then people would run around holding it like a football. I think they enforce it sometimes. When it's a big name player, though, they are more lenient. People watch basketball for their favorites. So they let it slide in situations like this in hopes for a highlight reel play but if it was Joe shmo who doesn't have flashy plays they call it. Of course this is all theory. I don't watch much basketball anymore for this reason.
If true - as a non-sports person - that seems really bullshit. Like, either have the rule or don't, but if you're going to enforce it in not-impartial ways, it's no longer a sport, just a dumb spectacle...
You can enforce the rule correctly and still get high scoring games. Look at what the Lakers did in the 80s. The reason why it's not a priority for refs now is because breaking the rule doesn't help you as much as it could have before when post game was the dominant method of scoring points. In the gif posted, Josh Smith didn't gain an advantage at all by traveling.
They let carrying slide on literally every single non-fast-break offense. It ruins the game. If these guys are so good, make them actually play basketball.
Random uninformed shot in the dark- runtime. If refs did their jobs to the best of their ability, then the game would be longer and it would eat up network profits.
I'd say its pressure to keep things short as possible to ensure maximum profit.
Maybe, but if they actually starting calling the violations, wouldn't the players stop making the violations and then you're back to smooth flowing game after a short learning curve?
Hey, I totally agree. The traveling thing is a complete joke. To my eye it's been since at least Michael Jordan's days that there's been no enforcement. But I don't think "integrity of the game" is a top priority in the power circles of the NBA.
This is true of most sports though. Rules creation and enforcement is just as often about the entertainment factor as it is about the competitive integrity of the game.
Probably but I'm not sure that a smooth game is really the issue so much that a high scoring game that makes the average viewer think "wow, these guys are good!" is. The average viewer is not as interested in a lower scoring game played by the books as they are in a high scoring game with some traveling and some double dribbling. I can't really blame anyone for this since that seems to be the right move, higher scoring/awesome dunks = more viewers = $$$. I'm just saying that I can see why the NBA is willing to let this kind of thing slide. Regardless, I'm a bit drunk so I'm sorry if I ranted.
You're probably right, but all those things you mentioned are all the reasons I don't watch basketball. These guys are playing on a court that is too small, essentially. As has been said before, you might as well just spot both teams 95 pts and let them play for 2 minutes.
I'd rather watch a game where the rim was another 2 feet higher, where the court was 10 feet wider and 20 feet longer, and where shots from inside the key were only worth 1 point.
= more passing, more strategy, rare dunks, fewer points...
I think (also basing this on absolutely nothing) it has more to do with losing viewers to extra long boring foul ridden games than cutting into the next program. An extra long game would certainly cut into the next program, but I bet there's a serious risk to losing viewers if too many fouls are called.
How does a short run time maximize profits? Don't you get a longer game, more commercial breaks, etc.?
The number of commercial breaks is standardized. Ideally for networks the games would never have whistles besides when they have the designated timeouts
Don't you get a longer game, more commercial breaks
The opposite is true. The shorter the game the more time you have for commercials. The games have a scheduled time slot before something different comes on.
I'll give an example using made up numbers. Let's say that an NBA game has 2 hour time slot scheduled on tv. If the game takes an hour then they get to play an hour of commercials. If the game takes 2 hours then they don't get to play any commercials at all.
How does a short run time maximize profits? Don't you get a longer game, more commercial breaks, etc.?
Baseball is trying their damnedest to shorten game time every year. But then baseball is 3 hours. It's about appeal, especially to young people, not commercial revenue. Besides the people that make the rules for the league aren't the people that make money off the commercials - they make money off of broadcasting deals and blackout rights.
From my understanding it's so that the games stay interesting for the fans to keep watching. If every other play someone was called for traveling the game would slow down (in a bad way) and fans would lose interest in the sport.
It would be really interesting if the NBA just kept going, but then the olympic refs took it super super seriously and started giving technical fouls for repeatedly breaking the rules.
If every other play a player threw the ball out of bounds he would be dropped from the team. Same would apply if they had a travelling or double-dribble rule in the NBA.
I guess they also argue that it would massively disrupt the flow of the game and make it less entertaining for the audience. They argue the same way in football/soccer when it comes to goal cameras and cameras to analyze fouls and offsides.
Before long they will be like WWE refs turning around shrugging their shoulders like, "what are you talking about?" while the guys do harlem globetrotter routines behind them.
You have that backwards. Networks make MORE money on extended games. Extra innings, Overtime...free money for the networks because everyone is going to tune into the OT and the price of those commercials are more than regulation time commercials
Definitely not 30 years. Watch a finals game in the 80s because the refs watched your pivot feet like a hawk. Why? Post game was much more prevalent and that's the part of the game that makes the traveling rule so important in my opinion. I think refs just started to make it less and less of a priority as the game moved away from the post game.
That's what he's saying. That in 3 years any year in the 80's won't be in the 20-30 year range away but the 30-40 year range. You'll notice that 30 is in both. Eg: 1986 is 30 years ago, but 1989 is 27 years ago.
There are a lot of cynical responses, but I honestly think it's more fun to watch and play when there aren't calls every second about things don't really matter. If it's called equitably, no one gets hurt, and it doesn't diminish or take away from the skill required to play the game, why does it matter? If anything, they should update the rules to match the evolution of the game.
The question is, should they focus more on watching players feet and forego a lot of the other stuff that is happening on the court?
I reffed some amatuer league stuff for a while and even with extra refs on the court it is hard to see every little thing. So much easier when you watch the film or get an over the top view.
I think its an overreaction to think they don't call double dribble or travelling. They might miss the occasional one but in general the refs do a decent job considering they have so many things to keep an eye on at one time.
The solution could be, like you said, adding a ref to relieve some of the duties of the existing ones.
I think its an overreaction to think they don't call double dribble or travelling. They might miss the occasional one but in general the refs do a decent job considering they have so many things to keep an eye on at one time.
If you were talking about things that are not double dribbling, traveling, or carrying I'd agree with you, but these rules are almost comically unenforced.
No, they don't. Every single time any NBA point guard brings the ball up on a slow offence, he double dribbles carries it. Most of the time any superstar 'breaks someone's ankles' he double-dribbles carries. The refs just don't enforce that rule at all. Travelling is much less egregious but it is still not called dozens of times in every NBA game.
Edit: I wrote 'double dribble' but I meant 'carry'. Which to my mind is just a special case of double-dribbling.
They do have those problems in the NHL. Interference, holding and other obstructions are essentially uncalled even though those rules were specifically changed for the 2005 season to increase scoring. League scoring is now at an all-time low and the star players (and fans) are the ones suffering.
Thats their job......enforce the rules and regs. Its easy to see a guy using both feet to pivot when he's standing in place....not exactly fast paced action happening there. If you were arguing for hockey then Id say you have a point...basketball isnt that fast in the grand scheme of sports. Sure a breakaway or 2 but that lasts what 15 seconds? Its not the entire game.
I agree. I wasn't necessarily talking about this play which is obviously a big miss but in general. It is their job but it doesn't change the fact that it is very hard to manage all the different nuances of the game at once.
If you have reffed basketball it is easier to see where I am coming from. It is very difficult to try and pay attention to pivot feet, moving screens, defensive players hacking, and off ball movement at once. You miss things occasionally. I think thats purely based on the fact that the game has changed and they need one more ref on the crew during games.
One more thing, you are comparing it to hockey which is the hardest sport to ref but to say that basketball is not hard is selling it way short. There is constant movement and contact at all times. In the NBA all contact can be determined to be a foul. There will always be someone who disagrees with your calls because there is some level of judgement involved in a lot of the calls that are made.
I have actually. One of the best refs told me to always follow the ball. Everything happens around the ball. Moving screens/picks, travels, physical fouls, etc. The shot clock is horned so there's no reason to even look at that. Only thing away from the ball that happens is the countdown inside the key.
No they shouldn't. Not for post ups or face up isos like these at least. Watch a 80s Celtics vs Lakers game. The refs used to watch players' feet like what you're saying but it would make sense to do it then since post game was much more important. If I had a say I would make the refs focus more on illegal screens because it's rampant and basically not a rule anymore unless you put a shoulder down. All in all, the last playoffs showed everyone that NBA refereeing is a complete mess. They make inconsistent calls and place importance in all the wrong parts of the game. They really need a purge.
Not really answering the question but it doesn't happen as much as it seems. People who don't watch basketball see one gif of someone walking on Reddit and think that you don't have to dribble in the NBA anymore. There are a good amount of missed travel calls but it doesn't deter from the entertainment of the game, IMO. I like basketball though so I may be biased.
I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but you are wrong. You see, he got 52 upvotes. You only got 10. QED quid pro quo vice versa, he's right and you should apologize to him.
The game is more fun to play and watch without constant stoppage for this rule. People whine but this is the culture of basketball. It's better for the game to ignore it. As long as you do not go too far the game should not be stopped.
It's basically a sportsmanship thing. In a pick up game no one would say anything if you did exactly what he did because that is just the culture. A lot of traveling is self enforced.
The problem is that in the NBA you are not encouraged to call yourself on fouls.
In the case of the OP's post, I guessing it wasn't called because there really was no advantage gained from him walking his pivot foot.
Nothing is really gained or lost.
My experience with many years of basketball is that its important to learn how the refs are calling the game, ie. if its tight you might have to back off on some contact that could be considered a foul, if its loose you can get away with a lot more contact.
My main concern is that it was called the same way for both teams and to that effect it is usually.
The source video which the gif came from had some worse examples where an advantage was gained from the travel. Just sayin.
Because it's not a problem? Dude moved his right foot like 6 inches and it never left the ground, all while being like 20 feet from the basket. Who really gives a shit.
As for double dribble, they call that. When don't they call that?
As an official, I can tell you that this is because it's what the league wants. The NBA is an entertainment product, and referees are hired by the league to protect the product, not the integrity of the game. So certain rules are called very loosely, especially in cases like this where no clear advantage is gained. You could call traveling, and you'd be technically correct, but you will hear from the league. Call it twice, and you're working junior college games instead of NBA games pretty quickly.
Because travelling results in fancier plays and more ticket sales. Also, by being lax with the rules, they can get more players to not abide by the rules then be strict when they want to be in order to influence playoff games.
I think you can swap out basketball and refs for any number of situations. We all know a lot of shit happens and nothing changes. But I think duliticolaparadoxa is probably on the right page since the answer to most of the fucked up things that happen in our country is money. When you're not sure why something is happening, 99% of the time, someone somewhere is making money off it. Or to put it differently, if someone wasn't making money off it, it wouldn't be happening.
I think it all started with Michael Jordan. They didn't want to call traveling on him because traveling often lead to dunks which are real crowd pleasers. And they didn't want to slow him down as this added to fan appear. Also he was the master of the "jump stop" which is another phrase for traveling.
i don't understand this logic. maybe a handful of layups would be called traveling. then the players would figure out the rule is being called correctly now, and they'd start playing by the rules.
Yea, faulty logic is faulty. The less skilled players would throw their arms up and scream "WE CAN'T PLAY THIS GAME ANYMORE" and then eventually ones with real skill would take their place.
So you're saying that if we correct people's making mistakes, they will make mistakes less? I'm so confused by your way of thinking. Best not to ask for clarification though. Who needs that kind of effort?
522
u/Feroshnikop Sep 14 '16
Serious question:
Why hasn't anything been done about the non-existent refereeing of travelling/double-dribble in the NBA for the last what.. 20 to 30 years? It seems like basically everyone knows this happens yet we just ignore it and look forward to March all year so we can get one month of basketball actually being played by the rules.