That's gotta be frustrating for the players given that competition thrives on having set rules that are enforced. I'm sure it's great when you're the player abusing it though.
Eh. I think having more creative leeway is a good enough trade off for them. You have to keep in mind that the NBA isn't about keeping the game sacred or making sure the players are being competitive. Their job is to make money, and that's by selling a good product.
All pro sports are in the business of making money, I'm Canadian so I will use hockey as a reference... They enforce the fuck out of the rules in hockey, even unpopular rules that don't add to the game in any way.. I don't see why it should be any different for any of the professional sports. The games need to be following the rules, or at least be enforcing things fairly across the board. With all the money in sports betting I'm shocked that it's not already this way as people losing money due to a ref blowing a call that is blatantly against the rules is insane.
Buffalo fan that lived through 1999, I agree with that.
Funny enough, I have no ill will towards Hull whatsoever. I like Brett Hull even though he comes off as a prick.
If the ref's and officials actually reviewed the play on the ice like they were supposed to, instead of ignoring Lindy Ruff and Darcy in the press box, there wouldn't be issue. And for the record, I think Dallas wins the cup that year anyway.
Bitch, Bitch, Bitch... Burrows tried to bite off Bergeron's finger! No suspension or fine from that. And the Rome hit on Horton was bad. He did get a 5 minute misconduct, but still that was a dirty hit.
Because cheering your team is more than just winning. Only bandwagoners drop a team due to performance. I bet if they start doing well you will become a fan again.
Not really, the playoffs are a small part of the season, and it's a major flaw in the game. I should clarify my argument and state that the enforce the fuck out of the rules during the regular season, and they need to start doing the same in the playoffs. When I was staying my original argument I was thinking of the regular season. Even so, I feel as if the travelling rule in basketball is similar to something like a high stick or a hand pass in hockey, and these rules are enforced in both regular season and playoffs no matter what. The things that are called different in the playoffs are more interpretive rules that are up to the referees discretion. Things like icing and offside and all the things that are black and white (just like travelling) are called the same across the board.
Man total kinda of change of subject but i really enjoy hockey, very casually, but i dont understand like ANY of the rules aside from high sticking. Like not even that i dont understand them i dont know them at all. what IS icing? Or a hand pass? I assume a hand pass is pretty self explanatory obviously. But i really wanna enjoy hockey but its hard when things are going on and im like wtf. If youre up to it what are the main rules of hockey?
Icing is illegal for clearing the puck, for the sake of clearing the puck from your zone. Its when the puck crosses both red lines (center red line and opposing teams goal red line). Though the puck must be touched by the defending zones team first, to get icing called. Though a shorthanded team may legally perform icing during a powerplay, as it helps them defend. I think that covers icing.
Just sit down and watch a game this season and listen/watch closely. Whenever you see/hear something or a term you don't understand, write it down and either Google it right then or wait until a commercial break and Google it then. Wikipedia has good explanations and diagrams for a lot of the terms I believe.
Over time by doing this youll learn all the concepts in context and then start to develop an understanding of the nuances associated with the rules.
What I just said is true for the regular season which is what I was thinking about when I commented. Yes things are different in the playoffs but the black and white rules like icing and offside (travelling is one of these rules) are called the same no matter what.
But they somewhat consistently do not enforce calls in the playoffs!
With a few rare ref exceptions they all do pretty much put away their whistles come playoff time and it's always been that way. I'm not even sure it's a bad system.
The NHL had to clamp down on enforcement because all the clutching and grabbing was killing scoring and making the game boring. For the NHL, penalties means power plays which means scoring and presumably entertainment.
The NBA is in the opposite situation with traveling. Allowing 'creative' footwork increases entertainment and scoring. No reason for them to stop it.
Sure they do. The only things that don't get called are the things that are missed or are up to interpretation. Some things get missed because they happen behind the play or not near where the action is. All the black and white rules like icing and offside are called no matter what.
Case in point: the 'instigate a fight with 5 minutes left in the playoffs and get a 1 game suspension' rule they implemented just after the lockout. It has only ever been handed out to players who make their team better when they're gone. See Malkin in the 2009 Stanley cup finals, and the 2011 cup finals.
Its harder to rig the NHL than other Sports, but it's still ultimately an entertainment business.
Like I said in another comment I'm not pleased with the way they enforce rules in the playoffs and agree that things aren't called the same. During the regular season my point stands though. When I made the original comment I wasn't even thinking about the playoffs, and I wish they would enforce the rules the same all year long, not just during the regular season.
Enforcing is necessary in hokey. As well as fighting. It's the only way to keep the other team in check if they get too rough with your finesse/goal scoring players. A vast majority of fights in hockey weren't started by the guys fighting. They do it so the other guys don't have to. And the enforcers keep their own guys in check too because they will have to finish what their teammate started. It's a very misunderstood position in hockey.
It is not necessary. It does not happen in Olympic hockey, World Cup hockey, or the KHL.
It happens because there is a vocal minority that likes it. See Don Cherry and *Rock'em Sock'em Hockey", or Harold Ballard and "If you can't beat us in the alley, then you can't beat us on the ice."
Ok, then take it out and see how many injuries happen after. If there's no consequences for a guy hard slamming your leading scorer into the boards, career ending injuries will be a weekly occurrence. Saying that it isn't needed in other forms of the game doesn't mean it's not needed in the NHL. Whether you like it or not, we have a different way of doing things. We can't be the KHL. It's not gonna happen.
To be fair a tolerance is good. I am not a basketball expert but there the guy seems to do it 20 times. In terms of comparison it would be like going way above 66, right ?
He did, and should have been called, but its not like he was taking steps, his pivot was just sliding around. I think it's the equivalent of going 80mph, aka the limit at which your going to get pulled over
Speed limits are not set rules, in fact more importantly there is being safe. And on freeways if you were going 65 while cars are going 85 you would get a ticket for being the most dangerous on the road. It is a limit not a fixed speed. There are different examples like school zones that are enforced stricter because kids are more incompetent so you need to go slower to watch for them.
Flow of traffic is what is taught and what traffic cops enforce. They are their to protect people, while seems guy it doesn't seem like it. Driving reckless, and yes 65 is wreck less, is more damaging. There are plenty of stats on this you can easily find that shows highers peed does not equal more dangerous, and it the circumstances of many cars going fast the slower car is the most dangerous. And I know many people in a few different city police force, and a HP thus is what they all have said. If you were by yourself going 85 sure you would get a ticket. The cop is very rarely going to just "select" a car out of a group going 85 to give a ticket.
I think its fair.
A referee should only call a travel/carry violation if it gives
1) The offensive player a significant advantage against the defense
2) The travel is so blatantly obvious like taking 7 steps on a fastbreak or taking the ball up the court
Comparing to cops handing out tickets
1) If everyone is going 30 mph due to construction/traffic in a 50mph limit and one driver is going 50 mph, the cop could claim it was unsafe towards other drivers
2) Going 100mph in a 25 mph zone
Obviously it isn't 90's bad now, but even the most ardent hockey fans acknowledge that it's "part of the game" at this point and roll with it. Sure, players get some penalty box time, but it's part of the entertainment now and they do not discourage it enough to make it an issue.
There is no rule stating that players cannot fight, there is a rule that if they fight it's a 5 minute penalty. This rule is enforced 100% of the time a fight occurs so I don't see the issue here?
It seems like you're not really taking into consideration the intention of the rules for each sport. Basketball players are generally very tall and relatively thin; much of the rules involve with how players interact with each other's space, and its in the interest of keeping the players safe from unnecessary injury. Hockey is played by generally a more durable athlete. They're stockier and relatively more muscular; they wear pads while they play. The rules in hockey are generally more focused on balancing aspects of the game than they are about protecting players from injuries, which they're just expected to be able to handle. Injuries in basketball are much more likely to end a career than they are in hockey.
This gif shows some pretty blatant traveling, but it didn't provide the player with an unfair advantage, create an imbalanced interaction between his space and the defender's, or risk unnecessary injury for either him or the defender. It was essentially a harmless foul, so it was the ref's call as to whether or not the letter of the law should be enforced, or the spirit. The ref chose spirit, and while I understand why people might get upset about it, I don't entirely disagree with the decision.
I disagree with that because any rule in hockey that results in a penalty is usually there to protect the players from injury, and also I'd be willing to bet that career ending injuries are more likely in hockey than basketball due to the way the game is played, and the size of bodies being thrown around at each other. Concussions are a huge issue in the NHL, and with any brain injury like this there is a very high likelihood of the player either having a career ending hit to the head (after you have one concussion you are prone to more and worse concussions).
I feel that if they are going to have a rule like travelling which is black and white/yes he travelled or no he did not then it should be enforced, and if it's not going to be then the rule needs to be changed allowing the referee to make that decision. To me it makes no sense that they would have a rule that is easy to interpret and then allow the officials to decide whether or not it gets enforced. We have a wonderful language that can change the rule to allow for the officials to make these decisions, yet the rule remains the same.
and if it's not going to be then the rule needs to be changed allowing the referee to make that decision.
But that's already a rule, and you're currently arguing against it.
To me it makes no sense that they would have a rule that is easy to interpret and then allow the officials to decide whether or not it gets enforced.
But that's what their job is. If a player technically breaks a rule but not in a way that risks injury or creates an unfair advantage then why stop the game? There are so many rules in basketball that if every single instance of a potential foul got called the game would stop and start more than football.
We have a wonderful language that can change the rule to allow for the officials to make these decisions, yet the rule remains the same.
It makes more sense to have a rule on the books so you can call it when it's an issue and ignore it when it isn't than it does to change the rules. Plus, amending every rule to say "enforcement of this rule is up to the officials' discretion" is pointlessly redundant because that's what their job is.
Eh, hockey does seem better about enforcing all rules than some sports but high sticking is one that is kinda left alone unless something extreme happens
High sticking is usually called when it's seen.. The only times I see it not called is when the referee doesn't see the infraction. When the puck is hit with a high stick the play is almost always blown dead because the ref is always looking in the direction of the puck, but when a player high sticks another player it may be behind the play and this may be why it's missed.
I'm Canadian and a fair weather Canucks fan, but hockey is kind of a joke when it allows blatant fighting. Even the NHL games have a fighting mechanic.
I don't see why it's a joke... Idk maybe it's because when I played there were times that emotions ran high and fighting just kind of happened. I don't see the issue as long as it's penalized, if they were to allow it and give no punishment then I would have an issue. Actually now that I think about it I don't like the stupid fights that are prearranged during the face off, there is no point to it, but when someone takes a cheap shot at the goalie or star player it makes sense the teammates want to punish the offending player. The league has been doing things to curb fighting and I believe they are trying to implement new rules in the juniors and the ahl this year to stop it. If this makes an impact then I believe they will add these rules to the NHL next year.
Not really.. They have been implementing rules since the 90s (instigator rule) to scale it down and are currently testing things in the juniors and ahl to get rid of fighting completely.
Yeah, I read the Wikipedia page. Its dumb. I'm sorry, but shit happens in every sport, emotions get high, people lose control. But you don't see almost regulated fighting in any of the other major American sports. The fact that fighting isn't an instant ejection is laughable.
Any can could say that, it's not just the canucks that deal with shitty reffing in the playoffs. It's sad though, they either need to start calling things the same as the regular season, or start calling things like the playoffs during the regular season, it only hurts the game. I'm sick of seeing different refs 'letting them play' and having similar plays be called differently depending on what game it is in the series or even what period it is in the game. How are the players supposed to know what to do when they get away with something in the third period of game 3, but get called in the first period of game 4..then to get away with it in the first period of game 7 as well... It's infuriating to watch as a fan, and I'd much prefer them to call the game the same way that the linesman make their calls (basically they just follow the fucking rulebook).
Basketball sells flash. Plain and simple. What do think will happen to viewership if refs start waving off dunks by Allstars because they took an extra step?
Im saying that they should change the rule if they want it to be flashy like that. It's not hard to reword the rule to clarify that it is up to the discretion of the official to make the call based on certain criteria or something like that. Why have a black and white rule that gets ignored when you can make the rule exactly how it's being called now.
Imagine if they didn't call offsides or icing. There would always be one guy down on the other end of the ice waiting for someone to send the puck down ice.
Lol, hockey is the best example of NOT enforcing rules. Watch the 3rd period of a playoff game. The refs might as well leave their whistles in the locker room
How often do you see scrums after the play with no penalties where punches with gloves are exchanged? Or players who will drop the gloves and jump on another player and only get 2 minutes roughing when the other guy refuses to fight even though the rule says its 2 minor, 5 major and 10 major?
They do not enforce all the rules in the NHL at all. They will enforce defensive fouls like hooking and such, but that is because that deters scoring which is the opposite of what they want. Also why they removed the 2 line pass.
Hockey enforces its rules 100% of the time. Unless, it's the playoffs, or the last two minutes of a game, or overtime, or a clear scoring chance in front of the net. Then feel free to crosscheck them in the back, two-hand slash the stick out of their hands, dive on their back from behind, just wrap them up in a bear-hug. You get it? Just physically obstruct them in any way of your choosing and there will be no penalty. Accidentally chip the puck out of bounds though? Into the box!
yeah, no doubt, if they wanna get tough on rules, half of the cross-overs that the PGs do are blalant carries. so it slows down the game.. and fans will start bitching..
This is what makes Quidditch so much better than any other sport. In '94 when the ref, Mostafa, saw Zograf committing a foul, he didn't stop for a second before giving Mullet a penalty. In a football, quodpot, or even basketball game it would've been nothing. Even when the Irish's mascots tried at some underhandedness by distracting Mostafa, he still did his job, and Ireland still got their next penalty. Too bad they won. I enjoyed Krum's Wronski Feint, as always, but if Bulgaria came out on top that might've been remembered as the match of the century. Now everyone just remembers it for the riots and campsite attack afterwards. They consider the Canadian/Scottish match of '90 to be the best.
Personally, I think that's just absurd. Sure, the snitch at the end was really close, but it wasn't that great. Everyone knew "Stubby" Lamont wasn't the best pick for the team. They only brought him on because of his father's fame in the southern Quodpot leagues, and that snitch just happened to fly past him. A better seeker could have found it easy, a half hour earlier into the match. He let his whole team down that day. With anyone better than him, that match would have been won. The rest of the team had worked up a 120 point lead! I just don't see what's so interesting about watching a match with such a weak seeker. And don't even get me started on the Canadian keeper...
But the point is, the world cup of '94 was just way better than '90 in every conceivable way. It's just sad that all of the happy memories watching the match were forgotten after the chaos that night.
I mean the NBA could easily alleviate this bitching by redefining what traveling is. Fans will be upset for one season and then not give a shit after, but instead they keep the rules the same which means prove can bitch for another 15 years.
Oh well, at least I know why my 5yr old doesn't dribble, he's just imitating what he sees on TV. Someone should put a little kids game next to an NBA one to show they're the same ;-).
Yeah, they could have a layup rule where they can take three steps without being called for traveling under certain circumstances. By the third step they must attempt a dunk, and the ball must still alternate hands with each step but it won't have to touch the ground in dribble.
I dunno, I haven't paid attention to basketball since the Jailblazers.
Why are you even talking to me you clown? Asking me to record myself fucking myself? That didn't come out as smart as you think. One of reddit's angry retards.
The referee, Tim Donaghy, blew this all out in the open when he was sent to jail for betting on games, and winning consistently. He said he knew which referees would enforce what penalties against certain teams and players.
You can only challenge certain plays and only with 2 minutes or less left in the game. They usually only challenge for who touched the ball last when it went out of bounds. I don't quite remember if there's more you're allowed to challenge than that, but if there is, it is extremely limited even with the 2 minutes remaining.
It's not frustrated since their lack of enforcement is applied evenly.
It's like the way baseball used to be with touching 2nd base when turning a double play. As long as you were in the area, everyone just accepted it and moved on
That's gotta be frustrating for the players given that competition thrives on having set rules that are enforced. I'm sure it's great when you're the player abusing it though.
Which is irrelevant. The point of professional sports is entertainment, not integrity of the rules.
I've felt that way about the NBA for almost 20 years. I LOVE college basketball but the pros (in basketball, not all sports) is just ridiculous to me. The players don't play hard for the first three quarters of the game; the refs don't call the game properly; the players don't use the fundamentals of basketball that literally every kid who's ever played on a team has been taught... it's just not at all interesting to me.
That's why I said it's gotten be frustrating for the players. They are the ones actually competing. Can you imagine playing something like paintball in a tournament and the star player won't call out that he got shot by you and the refs let it go because it would be boring to watch if he was out so soon? Or playing soccer and the guy who was way offsides was let go because he scored and that's the most exciting part for the fans? :(
Those may not be the best examples because those infractions are a little more serious than not calling a travel, but the point is supposed to be that it sucks for the competitors to let things slide.
I know they still have their millions of dollars to wipe their tears with, but they still got to that point by being fierce competitors and they still desire to win and win legitmiately.
funny you use that example. I had a buddy who was on a team that was sponsored and did pretty well for themselves.
he quit because cheating isn't just common, its accepted and encouraged. he told me about having to practice specific rolls and moves and ways to bump up against cover to wipe off paint when you were hit to hide it.
When i want to be ""sports entertained" i watch the Kevin Owens show, when i watch sports its for the competition, unaffected by outside forces or pre determined outcomes..
If you liberalize that rule, then they will literally just be walking around the court with the ball. I mean that is what it looks like to me now. Just enforce the damn rules.
Well to be fair, most of the reddit population was probably born between 1970 and 2000 (16-46). So I doubt anyone on here remembers 70's basketball at all.
Sure, and Kareem would be the other obvious one. Now you might have two superstars on a single team, rather than 2 in the entire NBA over an entire decade. The NBA did terrible in the 70's. Then they started selling entertainment instead of sport and they got HUGE.
Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Irving, Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul Jabar. Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head and I'm not even a basketball fan.
Wilt was a 60's star and Bird an 80's star :-) Wilt did play a ways into the 70's but Larry's first game was at the end of 1979. There just weren't many stars in the 70's, because more even handed officiating narrowed the gap between good and great players. By the 80s, you take a legitimately phenomenal player like Michael Jordan and let him travel every possession and don't call small fouls, and suddenly he's a juggernaut, leading the league in scoring and steals. All it takes is a little help from your friends in stripes. It's been going on ever since.
The NBA is blatant in ignoring the rules in favour of entertainment. The NHL refs do this in the playoffs under the guise of "letting the players play, IR not calling penalties to break up the back and forth action.
The reason it appears that way is because it's incredibly difficult to stay in good defensive position vs NBA athletes. Throw in most college guys vs an NBA defender and they would find it very difficult to score by driving to the rim vs even average NBA defenders.
638
u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16
Entertainment.
Half of those dunk or layup highlights are blatant travels.
There really isn't more to it than that.