I'd much rather watch a purer form of the game. Its bad enough that we have to suffer the egos of players and watch 1 on 1 or worse, 1 on 5. Basketball is best watched when its a team game.

I agree. That's why US college ball is great to watch. Team basketball, great defence. Love it.

One exception to the "if it's there, call it" mentality is when a player is fouled, but not stopped from passing/dribbling to an open lay up. Ref should play advantage in that situation.

Below I quote article 47.3 from the latest FIBA rules. It clearly states that advantage/disadvantage applies to violations as well as to fouls (contact).

It seems as though this is not well known within the basketball community.

Everyone knows that 3 steps is a travelling infringement. However, the rules say that the referees should NOT stop the game for that infringement unless the offensive player has gained a clear advantage (e.g. used the extra step to get around a defender).

"Article 47.3 When deciding on a personal contact or violation, the officials shall, in each instance, have regard to and weigh the following fundamental principles:
" The spirit and intent of the rules and the need to uphold the integrity of the game.
" Consistency in the application of the concept of 'advantage/disadvantage', whereby the officials should not seek to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily in order to penalise personal contact that is incidental and which does not give the player responsible an advantage nor place his opponent at a disadvantage.
" Consistency in the application of common sense to each game, bearing in mind the abilities of the players concerned and their attitude and conduct during the game.
" Consistency in the maintenance of a balance between game control and game flow, having a 'feeling' for what the participants are trying to do and calling what is right for the game."

C'mon now FIBA , that is precisely the crap that has allowed the game to deteriorate or has that rule been modified because of the clear abuse and lack of policing on travel violations .
I agree in principle with referee discretion on a clear advantage with regards to fouls ie ; minimal contact on fast breaks that do not interfer with play but quite simply the more interpretation there is the more confusion there will be .
Let something slip once and it will turn into a slide .

as good as that example was # 91704, I disagree...
there is nothing more frustrating than a ref giving a no call at one end, because of circumstances... then calling it at a different point of the game because it was there...
either the violation/foul is there or it isn't!!!!!

Fair call , another hypothetical for you .
GF Game 5 vs the Dragons : The sixers are up by one with 10 seconds to go and the "hummer" gets by Maher with an extra little step , no real advantage only a small indescriminate step , then proceeds to get to open to bury a three ball and crush the heart of all in view , nice one .

Thanks DB5 and ANON , was writing reply as you were posting , glad to see others agree .

Anon 91704, What team that is two down with 15 s to go is NOT going to extend?

I wanna play them.

Referees should be instructed to referee to the rules, not to interpretations that have every player and his dog wondering what's going to be called next.

Why do we need interpretations when we have rules? The rules are there for a reason.

Unpires are being blamed for this, but it is the people who tell them how to umpire. Sure, there are going to be some situations that require advantage or whatever, but not if they've broken such a fundamental rule in the game such as travelling.

reply, travelling to get past someone is gaining an advantage - so that isn't a very good example. That said, I believe travels should be called in any circumstance. No exception.

But the advantage foul rule should be imposed. Why? Because by calling the foul, you are actually disadvantaging the offensive team.

One rule I don't like is when a player has the ball on the perimeter, defence tries to slap at it - clearly slaps arm of offensive player with a nice loud clapping sound to go with it, and the ref doesn't call it because there is no disadvantage. In that case, a foul should be called - if you can't pressure someone without fouling then don't do it.

I must say that our game is no longer able to be governed by black and white rules. It's far too complex for that now. But, bring back the Mutumbo finger wave - how can that possibly be a bad thing??

So Baby J, if you're umpiring a game, and a 4'9 point guard has his foot in the keyway, his team mate being pressured in the backcourt and he's surrounded by three 7 footers, you'd call 3 seconds on him?

That's where black and white ruins game.

Or, more realistically, you're on a fast break, as you speed the past one and only defender, he touches your arm, but you continue on for lay up. Call foul, sideball at mid court?

Umpires HAVE to interpret, that's the game we play. And love.

I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure section 38 of the NBA rulebook reads:

38.1 - A player with possession of the ball is permitted up to 3 steps without dribbling unless said player finishes the play with a crazy dunk

38.2 - Referees are permitted to use thier discretion at all times in regards to travel calls, this includes overlooking blatant pivot foot changes and extra steps which have not been covered by 38.1

38.3 - Referees are encouraged to make random travel calls which are totally inconsistent with the rest of the match

38.4 - Commentators are required to support the referee's call (or non-call) irrespective of how wrong they've got it


For mine I think the non-call of blatant travels adds nothing to the game. If LeBron takes 4 or 5 steps before throwing one down I don't think how amazing the dunk was, I think how blatant the preceeding travel was. There's discretion and there's ridiculousness.

Do we want the game to be refereed with "feel for the game" or to the "letter of the law"?

Do we want "calling the game" or "managing the game"?

If you would like the rules to be enforced, as it states according to the rules, then the Coach CANNOT address the referees at any stage during the game! This is the sole responsibility of the Captain:

Art. 6 Captain: Duties and powers
6.1 The captain is a player who represents his team on the playing court. He may communicate in a courteous manner with the officials during the game to obtain information, however, only when the ball is dead and the game clock is stopped.

Furthermore, as it states that the CAPTAIN is the only person able to address the referee, then all other players must remain silent.

Added to this, it is the duty of the Coach to nominate a Captain:

Art. 7 Coaches: Duties and powers
7.1 At least twenty (20) minutes before the game is scheduled to begin, each coach or his representative shall give the scorer a list with the names and corresponding numbers of the team members who are eligible to play in the game, as well as the name of the captain of the team, the coach and the assistant coach. All team members whose names are entered on the scoresheet are entitled to play, even if they arrive after the beginning of the game.

Thus, what if the Coach hasn't provided a list with the Captain of the team being named? I guess then, according to the rules, that NOBODY would be allowed to address the referees, at any stage during the game.

I do realise that this is taking things to the extreme. But if people want the game to refereed to the leter of the law, in complete accordance with the rules, then this is what they could be looking at.

I close with my opening statement:

Do we want the game to be refereed with "feel for the game" or to the "letter of the law"?

Do we want "calling the game" or "managing the game"?


PAUL BRADSHAW

Paul, get back to school. Your debating team needs you.

The Doc , to me travelling is one of the most refined and defined rules in the game . The dance on the pivot , one step , two steps , jump stop , stride stop , the intricate mind to feet connection that makes the game beautiful has been strained by lazy players and lenient officiating on what is an advantage . What is a disadvantage to the game is when players can dictate by style in this case it became acceptable on the fast break to allow flashy dunks , then one extra step before dribbling with no d pressure now it is interpretation of what is advantageous or not when really it should be if you travel you travel .

I dont give a damn how spectacular the "dunk" is. If you travel to make that dunk, then its no dunk, call the travel & hand the ball to the other crowd.