Messing around with the rules of basketball

[rikhardur]

Let's make some weird conjectures and see if there is anything in the rules about it:

- Can a player instead of shooting from the FT line standing still, take some balance and take a jump shot just over the FT line?
- Can a player take all the time in the world to shoot from the FT line? What if he takes like 5 minutes to shoot, can the referee call a technical? Is there some time limit?
- Can a player move around outside the court instead of standing still when putting a ball in the game? Will travelling be called?

Throw your conjectures and discuss :D

[worldbasketball]

I think all baskets from behind the half court should should count as four points.

Fouls while the player is shooting this kind of shot should get 4 free throws to shoot

[Khalid80]

I think all baskets from behind the half court should should count as four points.

Fouls while the player is shooting this kind of shot should get 4 free throws to shoot

How about a player scoring the basket from out of bounds or from behind the basket. Those shots are really tough and should be considered as 5 points :D

[rikhardur]

How about a player scoring the basket from out of bounds or from behind the basket. Those shots are really tough and should be considered as 5 points :D
I thought about those too. What if he is out of bounds, throws the ball and it's in?

[worldbasketball]

I thought about those too. What if he is out of bounds, throws the ball and it's in?

But how to decide it is out of bounds actually when it was shot. I myself think the points given should remain the same. The same with from behind the basket. Just who decides it is actually behind the basket or not. Or half way through?

Actually giving various points for various baskets is not such a strange idea. The points awarded is not uniform in some leagues. I attend some games where at certain points when a light is on above the basketball board, the score is considered three, even though in ordinary basketball rules applied it is just 2. So the teams have incentive to play a more aggressive game to get the three points in those 30 seconds.

In some game arrangements, dunks also count as three... I've seen these types of games as well in certain tournaments.

These measures make the game more interesting and exciting, and for the team lagging behind, gives them an opportunity to catch with winning team far more possible (It is the last second and the difference is say 4 points...

--

Changes in rules change games. Look what happened when they drew the three point line in basketball. The whole game of basketball changed foir the better. There was a time when it was only 2 points from whatever distance.

--

MESSING AROUND WITH THE RULES OF FOOTBALL (SOCCER)

Change of rules can allowed soccer to be far more interesting with twisting existing rules. One would be widening the net (length and width) to make scoring easier.... The present size is not such a sacred issue that can never change. It should change to make a more open game. I also say scrap the rule for "off side" for good. No off side whistles any more. It just stops games unnecessarily and leads to fights and arguments between players and on the tribunes.... was it offside, was it not? I mean why should a quicker team be penalized just because the other team retreated... I mean that's stupid to me. Let the game continue and let the "off side" guy score for all I care. Why stop the game?

Another rule. Let's say winner gets 3 and loser one. In case of equality both get one point each, right? (Before they used to get 2 -- so that's a change right there to alow more aggressive play to score).

But what IF the game ends with equality but one team hit the bar once and the other team didn't? Is it fair to consider them both at the same level? I think not. Perhaps in case of equality, 2 points should be given for the team that hit the bar more and just 1 to the team that didn't? I mean it is only fair. The team that hit the post tried harder!

Another points change, What if when the equality is 0-0, no points are awarded to either? Only with positive equalities like 1-1 or 2-2 do they get points... This will be a great incentive for both teams to try to score at whatever cost -- I mean both teams will try harder, or else both get zero points!!! This is also fair. These days, what teams do is throwing the ball out of bounds all the time to waste time. If they know in case of 0-0 finish, they will both get 0 points for not trying, they will stop this fullish practice right there and then. I am also for giving just 1/2 point to each team with scores of 1-1 and full points only with scores 2-2 and on.

Winning teams with one goal difference lets say 1-0 or 2-1 should get just 2 points not three. Only with 2 goal difference would they be awarded the three meritted points like when the score is 2-0 or 3-1 etc... This way the team with 1 point ahead will not resort to wasting time (they will get only 2 points remember... not three). The winning team will continue to try to score even higher to get the three points... or else they end up with just 2.

The only ones who oppose such changes are traditionalists who want things to stay the same and stagnate. Games should always adapt to make things nore exciting or else people move to other sports as they do.

[rikhardur]

But how to decide it is out of bounds actually when it was shot.
Simple, I was thinking of a player actually outside the court, as in trying to put a ball back into the game, imagine he throws the ball and it's in.

[thadzonline]

Let's make some weird conjectures and see if there is anything in the rules about it:

- Can a player instead of shooting from the FT line standing still, take some balance and take a jump shot just over the FT line?

I think this is ok as long as you dont step on the line



- Can a player take all the time in the world to shoot from the FT line? What if he takes like 5 minutes to shoot, can the referee call a technical? Is there some time limit?
it is to my understanding that you are given between 5-8 seconds to shoot it. not too sure though



- Can a player move around outside the court instead of standing still when putting a ball in the game? Will travelling be called? if done after a made basket, this is legal. But if not then its traveling

[thadzonline]

How about a player scoring the basket from out of bounds or from behind the basket. Those shots are really tough and should be considered as 5 points :D

doing so would basically change a long standing rule that the ball has to touch somebody then it's on play. Something to think about though. :rolleyes:

[damelo]

if done after a made basket, this is legal. But if not then its traveling

Nope, you can go as far as you want from the court, I think. But, you can't go towards the basket, or in the other way.

For the FTs, I think it's the 5sec rules applying.

For shooting FTs, the player's feet can't pass the line until the ball hasn't touched the circle. if the ball doesn't touch the circle, on the last attempt, it's a n out of bound ball for the other team.

[rikhardur]

This one fits here just pefectly. Lega Due Pistoia's Tony Skinn (1.85m) kicks a player from Scafati to make a dunk. No foul called.

eOI5QCCrChs

[pohani komarac]

Let's make some weird conjectures and see if there is anything in the rules about it:

- Can a player instead of shooting from the FT line standing still, take some balance and take a jump shot just over the FT line?
- Can a player take all the time in the world to shoot from the FT line? What if he takes like 5 minutes to shoot, can the referee call a technical? Is there some time limit?- Can a player move around outside the court instead of standing still when putting a ball in the game? Will travelling be called?

Throw your conjectures and discuss :D

you have right jump on ft line, but you can't go over ft line

he can get tehnical, but it's ref decision when he takes to much time. similar like in handball where there is no time limit for ofense, but ref can take ball away from you because of passive attack. (usually it's around 40th. sec.)

yes and he can pass to teamate who is outside of court

[prtzn]

This one fits here just pefectly. Lega Due Pistoia's Tony Skinn (1.85m) kicks a player from Scafati to make a dunk. No foul called.
OMG! It looks like he's kicking him in the nuts prior to dunking! Not cool!

Here's a clip of Sabonis giving Danilovic lift for dunking, with Danilovic' explanation of what happened (I translated a bit of it...):
rN0ty1UC6fY
Danilovic:
... I wasn't going for the dunk; I was going for a "normal" basket, but when I jumped one of my knees leveled with his elbow which gave me extra lift...

Danilovic about 'The Look' after the dunk:
... The look wasn't meant for him (Sabonis) at all, because Sabonis is one of the best European players ever to appear on court. There is an unwritten rule, at least for me, that you should never underestimate any player, or make fun of him on court; and especially Sabonis, because the same Sabonis could in the very next possession line up me, along with the rest of the team, dunk on us all, and then give us a '30 minute look'. The look wasn't meant for him, it was meant for the referee, who was behind Sabonis at that moment. Because I thought he should have called a foul. But the camera made it look as if I've said something to Sabonis...

We've seen a lot of this kind of situations where you 'climb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-RWUeKMCx8)' on the opponent in order to dunk, but is it allowed if you climb on your teammate?
Or is it allowed for two of your teammates to launch you high enough to out-jump any potential shot-blockers?

If it were allowed for the teammates to launch you, it could be used during a final possession (when your team needs a basket to win).
For example:
5 seconds left in the game, PG has the ball on half-court. He shoots good enough to hit the rim, your opponents can't touch the ball on it's downward flight to the basket, and then the Centar and the PF launch the SF high enough (and with the appropriate timing) to intercept the ball during it's downward flight, and the SF catches the ball and escorts it to the Basket...

[rikhardur]

Great input prtzn. That's actually done in rugby:

http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/postnews/blizzard/blizzard_archives/issues/4-17-2008/photos/rugby.jpg

[prtzn]

Another issue:
Obviously, the clock doesn't stop when the ball isn't directly above the court. As I understand, the ball has to hit the outside of the court (or a player that is touching the outside of the court at that moment) for the clock to stop. The clock is also stopped if a ball hits the ceiling etc...

What if a guy just threw the ball away into the crowd? Does it have to touch someone from the crowd (or a chair, or whatever...) for the clock to be stopped, or will the officials stop the clock, when they think that the ball is clearly out of bounds?

The reason why I'm asking this is: if the officials have to wait for the ball to hit something, it could give an advantage to a team that is leading by 1 or 2 pts, (and has the ball) with a few (2,3...) seconds remaining.
The leading team (team A) could really suck at free trows, and their opponents (team B) could be really good at shooting from distance.
A guy from team A could throw the ball as hard as he can (and in a direction where the ball could fly as long as possible before touching anything) so the time can run out before he (or any of his teammates) can be fouled...


I also say scrap the rule for "off side" for good. No off side whistles any more. It just stops games unnecessarily and leads to fights and arguments between players and on the tribunes.... was it offside, was it not? I mean why should a quicker team be penalized just because the other team retreated... I mean that's stupid to me. Let the game continue and let the "off side" guy score for all I care. Why stop the game?
Actually, the offside rule wasn't introduced because someone influential was jealous of the fast guys, it's aim was to stop lazy-ass players from squatting in the goalkeepers area.
It's a good thing trying to think outside the box, but most of your notions have pretty good arguments against them.
On the other hand, I would vote for your 0:0 rule...


That's actually done in rugbyIt would be very useful during a corner kick in football, but in football they have a call against such witty things...