PDA

View Full Version : Rules needing help



titopoet
01-24-2011, 06:51 AM
I believe that Sacre's foul had to be called, but looking at so many games there are two areas that need to be addressed. First, if you are going to make elbows high an intentional, the whistle has to be quicker on reach ins after rebound is established, especially at the end of a close game. Why would someone not stick their nose and tried to get a tie up. Before Sacre throws the elbow he was fouled and earlier he got tied up. If he turtles it up then he gets tied up. It is a lose-lose. Unfortunately, coaches will see the tape and coach their players to go get tie ups. making the game uglier. But if their is quicker whistle then that stops.

Second, make the circle in under the basket. Too many times in all the games, charges were given right under the basket.

adoptedzag
01-24-2011, 07:31 AM
I believe that Sacre's foul had to be called, but looking at so many games there are two areas that need to be addressed. First, if you are going to make elbows high an intentional, the whistle has to be quicker on reach ins after rebound is established, especially at the end of a close game. Why would someone not stick their nose and tried to get a tie up. Before Sacre throws the elbow he was fouled and earlier he got tied up. If he turtles it up then he gets tied up. It is a lose-lose. Unfortunately, coaches will see the tape and coach their players to go get tie ups. making the game uglier. But if their is quicker whistle then that stops.

Second, make the circle in under the basket. Too many times in all the games, charges were given right under the basket.

All that means is that you find a guy who's willing to take one on the chin and you get up in the rebounders face _every_single_time and eventually you're going to get that intentional called. Its only a matter of time before this starts being exploited. You have 3 possible outcomes from doing this:

1: Foul on the "elbow-ee"
2: Intentional foul on the "elbow-er"
3: tie-up, jump ball.

2 of the 3 favor the team that didn't get the rebound, obviously point 2 being the most "beneficial" for not getting the rebound. Point 1 happens, but you have 5 fouls to give per person.

Its the beginning of a very bad situation for both the refs and the team that actually hustles to get the rebound.

77Zag
01-24-2011, 07:53 AM
Ok, the rule basically sucks -- I'm sure the NCAA will take their sweet time about reviewing the issue to "re-evaluate" the need to "revisit" the rule in due time.

However, let's be real - if the ref is going to call it and if he "thinks" its an "intentional call"; make that form the get go. Why the need for replay? Is this also part of the bad rule?

If they need to replay to determine intentional fouls, then do it more often.
Sacre was tomahawked in the SCU game, with absolutely no intent to get the ball from behind -- alas, no review.

This all needs some work, or perhaps we all need some better understanding of the rule.

Not at liberty spend time to do research, perhaps someone has the link?

Hoopaholic
01-24-2011, 08:12 AM
apply it consistently....


so when the offensive player jumps elbow first into Steve Gray and cuts his lip should have been called intentional leading with elbow for example

webspinnre
01-24-2011, 08:13 AM
Well, the review is because as written an elbow above the shoulders is an automatic intentional, no interpretation needed. Hence them checking to see where hit.

EngineerZag
01-24-2011, 09:39 AM
Here's what I don't understand, though. Elbow above the shoulders? Above whose shoulders?? Sacre's elbows are always going to be above other players' shoulders. He didn't have his elbows above his own shoulders though and that's why I thought the call was bad.

ZagNut08
01-24-2011, 09:50 AM
Here's what I don't understand, though. Elbow above the shoulders? Above whose shoulders?? Sacre's elbows are always going to be above other players' shoulders. He didn't have his elbows above his own shoulders though and that's why I thought the call was bad.

This, in my opinion, is one of the major flaws with the rule.

NEC26
01-24-2011, 04:11 PM
It was a foul but they need to call the hand and arm slapping and grabbing if you can no longer swing your arms. Plain and simple.

Section 116
01-24-2011, 07:31 PM
From the NCAA Basketball 2010 and 2011 Men's and Women's Rules.

Points of emphasis on Page 16:

Excessive Swinging of the Elbows
Last year, there were increases in excessive swinging of the elbows. This
action should not be ignored because of the associated danger to another
player. Contact resulting from an illegally thrown elbow can cause serious
injury. Consequently, excessive swinging of the elbow(s) is a point of
emphasis.
When the arm and elbow, with the shoulder as a base (pivot) are swung
with a speed that exceeds the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on
the pivot foot, that action is considered to be excessive. Contact, after such
an action, shall not be ignored but shall be called a flagrant foul. When the
player’s arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung excessively but without contact, a
violation has been committed.
When the arms and elbows and the rest of the body move with the same or
similarly generated speed and contact occurs, that contact is not considered to
be excessive. However, the contact is illegal, and a foul shall be assessed.

PDF download available at:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf

This is a quick download with a high speed connection, otherwise it will take a while.

kclubfounder
01-24-2011, 07:41 PM
You get the rebound, you grip the ball with elbows outstretched and twist and turn and give yourself some room.

You DON'T get the rebound and decide to prod and poke and swing and swipe and catch an elbow on the chin, you got what you deserved.

That's the way it should be.

The rule sucks.

pargo4prez
01-24-2011, 08:49 PM
My problem from the beginning was that Rob handled the rebound properly and pivoted with his feet and had his elbows following. It's not his fault that he's so much taller than the opponent. Punishment for being tall?...not right.

hondo
01-24-2011, 09:50 PM
Bad rule and worse interpretation. The refs we see most often are simply not willing to make an unpopular call at the end of a game. There are reasons why home teams win most games and reffing is one factor. This is the main reason I alway like and defend Dave Libbey he has the guts to make the unpopular call when the home crowd is going nuts. There are some really good refs out there we just didn't see them this week.

UberZagFan
01-24-2011, 10:04 PM
This is the main reason I alway like and defend Dave Libbey he has the guts to make the unpopular call when the home crowd is going nuts.

Hondo, Uber agrees with a lot of your posts a lot of the time but not this one. Libbey didn't make the "unpopular call" because it was the right call--he made it because he just couldn't help from drawing attention to his self.

webspinnre
01-25-2011, 07:24 AM
My problem from the beginning was that Rob handled the rebound properly and pivoted with his feet and had his elbows following. It's not his fault that he's so much taller than the opponent. Punishment for being tall?...not right.

The second half of your post I agree with. For the first, his elbows were moving MUCH faster than the rest of his body. According to the letter of the law, it was the right call.

guardu
01-25-2011, 07:50 AM
The only possible teaching solution for this ridiculous rule is to teach your guards to make themselves accessible immediately and teach your post players to instantly turn to the baseline where a guard or forward would be to get rid of the ball.

That's the only way you're going to keep from seeing a held ball or foul situation. Having been a post player myself it makes me very angry that they've created a moment in the game where there is essentially nothing you can do right short of get rid of the ball instantaneously. Which by the way goes against every fundamental that has been taught to centers/forwards as long as I can remember. Especially in late game situations, which is secure the ball first, pivot second, and look for your guards third at the elbow of free throw line preferably.

Part of me hopes this happens in the final four etc. so that the rule gets fixed in a quicker fashion. Since, you know, we all have such great trust in the NCAA doing the right thing.

hondo
01-25-2011, 09:47 AM
"The only possible teaching solution for this ridiculous rule is to teach your guards to make themselves accessible immediately and teach your post players to instantly turn to the baseline where a guard or forward would be to get rid of the ball."

It would have been extremely difficult for Rob to make an outlet pass with a Don hanging on each of his arms.

titopoet
01-25-2011, 10:02 AM
My view that it is a good rule with unintended consequences like what happen several times this season and cost GU a game. What could change is that once the rebound it established, the opponent has to give distance or they call him for an intentional foul. Neither SFU player gave Sacre the room. Now the rules will not be changed until next year. Time to coach players to dig in and grab the ball after rebounds. Nothing to lose. If the guy swings to get space, intentional foul. (You know this will happen once coaches see what happen to GU) Paradoxically, you will see more of elbows flying not less. Sign of a badly constructed rule.

zag944
01-25-2011, 03:45 PM
call a foul on Sacre...just dont call a flagrant when the defender is swarming him and you feel the need to !@#$ing swallow your !@#$ing whistle for once in the game. Sacre is in trouble with coach if that defender wraps up the basketball and causes a jump ball. He was throwing elbows to clear space before the defender continued to pursue the ball. It may have been an aggresive action, and it may have been his fault, but it was hardly one with a malicious intent.

why the circle hasnt been painted under the hoops is beyond me. if there is a line affecting the game why isnt it showing? why dont we just let the refs decide if shots are long enough to be worth three points?