Orlando Magic Blog

Group Blog talking about the NBA 2009 Eastern Conference Champions. Due to the amazing success of the 2009 playoff run comments are now frequently deleted to kill offensive comments, incoherence, or asininity. Comments can no longer be anonymous and require either a Blogger or OpenID account.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Offensive Basket Interference

I have had a problem with this offensive basket interference from the start, and still do. The simplest analogy to it may be "You could have your cake but you can't eat it". I understand the logic behind the defensive basket interference being for the sake of higher scoring outputs, as well as allowing shorter players to have more chances against taller ones. As for the offensive basket interference, what is wrong with an offensive player to make sure that the ball is going through the basket even though it is around the rim?

As these kind of calls, whether defensive or offensive interference, have some tendency to depend on the view of the referees, I am for abolishing both types of interferences. I am weighing the uncertainty of the calls against lower scoring outputs, and some shorter players being at a disadvantage compared to taller players, and in my view, removing the uncertainty of the calls weighs heavier. In all honesty, taller players are at a disadvantage against shorter players speed-wise; do we have to come up with some rules to level the playing field in that regard? Of course not.


  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Mike from Illinois said…

    Matt, I could kind of see your point on offensive basket interference, but I don't think the defensive goaltending call should be abolished. If defensive goaltending were allowed, I think it would be much too easy for a defender to slip underneath the basket and knock a ball away as it's about to go through, therefore, the scoring would be down considerably and take away a lot of the excitement of a typical game.

    True, goaltending calls are subject to the referees' view, which may not be the right one, but so are many other calls (such as charging). There's always going to be uncertainty on many close calls.

    I would be in favor of abolishing the offensive goaltending call, but highly against abolishing the defensive goaltending call.

  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Big Figure said…

    I have to be honest,i personally dont have a problem with the rules,either of them.

  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    I would give up my claim on defensive goal tending if the offensive interference is abolished. Big Figure, could you explain to me what is the purpose of offensive basket interference?

  • At 7:52 PM, Blogger OVERWADED said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger OVERWADED said…

    Offensive goal tending is one of those questionable violations in the NBA.

    However, I think they need to pay some serious attention to offensive fouls and 3 seconds violations. As far as I can tell, players have to re-adapt themselves every night based on what officials are calling the game.

    Sometimes 3 seconds is called very excessively, even if a player’s big toe is in the lane for 2.9 seconds. Explain this to me, when a defensive player gets 3 seconds called on him, why should the opposing team get a free throw out of it? The only reason a defensive player would be down there, not moving at all, would be because the offense is standing still, doing nothing. While I understand the idea of not letting a guy camp out down there, it’s hard for me to understand rewarding the offensive team with a free throw for being stagnant, doing nothing, essentially not running their offense. How does this warrant a free throw? Why should a team be rewarded for not executing their offense?

    Then there is offensive fouls, which have turned into a total joke in this pussy-cat-league. I’d say maybe 1 out of 3 offensive fouls are correct. I know the NBA has said they’re going to crackdown of flopping, but I really don’t see how unless they start fining players for flopping. Again, this is a call that gets the aggressive team in foul trouble, and many times rewards players for what they learned in drama class. Something needs to be done here.

    But back to Matt’s topic; I can understand defensive goal tending. Maybe the only reason offensive goaltending is a rule, is because defensive goaltending is a rule. Maybe they don’t want the officials to have to monitor the difference between offensive and defensive interference. Here’s an example. If an offensive player was aloud to go up and put the ball down when it was above the cylinder, the defensive player wouldn’t be able to do anything to defend it because if he touched the ball it’d be a violation. So I’m thinking this is how they balance it out. I’m guessing that’s what the NBA is thinking. That’s still stretching it, but that’s all I can think of.

  • At 8:34 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    All right Mr. OVERWADED. You have expanded the scope of the debate. Now we have to fix all the calling ills in the league, and as such the task has become so big that we may not resolve any thing!!! Just kidding! There are issues after issues with refereeing in the league. My overall view is to take the subjectivity out of the equation, and make the rules as simple and as objective as possible. That, however, does not seem feasible since the rules are too convoluted, so let's take them as we go along, one at the time. Afer all, we have some spare time due to all-star break that we may put to some good use. I, honestly, have a hard time figuring out your explanation for the offensive goal tending, that you yourself call stretching. My question is since the ball is on the rim, and it may go in for the offensive team, what harm is there if an offensive player tries to make sure that it goes in?

  • At 5:46 AM, Blogger OVERWADED said…

    Well, would it be fair to the defensive team if only the team on offense could touch the ball? As it'd be a violation for a defensive player to touch the ball, in turn, they could do nothing at all to defend it.

    And as far as I can think of, every play in basketball is defendable, except free throws; but of course you're shooting those because the other team was in violation. But beyond free throws, defense has an opportunity. If the rules were to change and offensive players where aloud to touch the ball when it was above the cylinder, but defensive players weren’t, what's the defender suppose to do? It just doesn't sound fair.

    In the end, the offensive players would have the advantage for put backs and rebounds, because they would be aloud to touch the ball when it was above the rim, where as a defensive player wouldn't be to until it cleared.

    Did that make more sense? I tried to make sense of it. :)

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Matt said…

    What is missing in your explanation is that the defensive player has no option anyways because if he touches it, he would be called for defensive goal tending. Another words, if the ball is in the cylinder it belongs to the offensive side. Of course if the ball comes off the cylinder, both sides have equal right to go for rebounding. Back to my question; since the ball belongs to the offensive side while on the rim, what harm is there for an offensive player to make sure that it is definitely going in?

  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Big Figure said…

    Matt the one thing that is a flaw in your logic is this,the second that the ball leaves the shooters hands it no longer belongs to a specific team,so the ball being on the rim and not being able to be touched by either teams is a matter of equality and respecting the shooter to see if his shot will go in on his own doing,in european basketball they dont have either rule,i watched dwight take balls right off the rim,and on the other end he'd tip in balls that were on the rim,the basic logic is simple,if you allow one you have to allow the other and vice versa.Our nba is the example of vice versa,not allowing either.The main reason i would never like this to be allowed is simple also,there are many players in this league that have minimal skills,if you allow players to offensive interfere with shot attempts,you turn ordinarily garbage players into superstars,all they have to do is wait for a decent shooter to shoot the ball,and anytime the ball doesnt go right through the nets,they could tip it in for an easy basket without having to actually grab a rebound and put it back in,pat garrity would become dwight howard with that rule allowed,anytime pat or any other average/below average player doesnt let a ball come of the rim he would get a rebound and two points and didnt have to do any thing offensively,you cant have that,something has to seperate the talented rebounders from the average,and not allowing players to touch the ball until it is noticeably coming off gives you that seperation.

  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    I don't want to stretch this issue beyond what is necessary. However, it seems to me that:

    1 - I am looking at the issue from the the angle of the offensive teams' benefit, and I don't care much about individual players' stats. If some players have the knack of collecting garbage around the basket, why not let them be?
    2 - I am for abolishing any unnecessary rule. The rules are too convoluted, as they are, and any reduction in rules are desirable. International basketball is not falling apart without basket interference rules. Why not reward athleticism of players like Dwgiht who can grab the ball way up there, instead of minding high scoring? After all, the game of basketball was supposed to favor tall and athletic players.

  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Big Figure said…

    The offensive teams benefit isnt fair logic in my view,(in my view you have to do whats best for both teams).But i said my piece above why i thought they were very necessary so calling the rule unnecessary would just be opinion and not fact.Fact is,some people like the rule,and some people dont,but david stern is the only one who can change the rule,so matt i'll leave it all to you,maybe your efforts can get the rule changed,it wouldnt bother me either way (the rule).

  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    Sorry Big Figure that I was not clear in my post. I meant to say any rule that is proven to be unnecessary. I did not mean to say this particular rule is unnecessary, just because I may think so. I value and respect different opinions.

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger OVERWADED said…

    There’s nothing like a good friendly debate!

    I myself liked BIG’s explanation. He used the word “equality”. And the point the ball is above the cylinder, the shot has been taken, all players have to respect that and see what happens. Still, it comes back to “equality”, or being fair for everyone on the court. If the offensive players are aloud to interfere, it wouldn’t be fair for the defensive players. With that one put back, an offensive player would have the opportunity for 1 rebound and 2 points; and the defensive player, would have no opportunity, and ironically be left defenseless.

    “If some players have the knack of collecting garbage around the basket, why not let them be”?

    I think what BIG was trying to say was that if offensive players were aloud to "interfere" with the ball when it was above the rim, then average players would be collecting garbage. Right now, guys like Dwight still collect garbage, but it takes a gifted player, with a knack for it. If players were aloud to touch the ball when it was sitting on the rim, every random douche of a player would be jumping up there; which is why BIG mentioned Pat Garrity. Sure some baskets would go in, but you'd end up seeing some baskets missed that would have gone in just because of guys trying to get put backs.

    As far as the mention to international basketball, they play a completely different style. They're a league driven by fundamentals. They don't exactly have many "high flyers". Where as the NBA, for the most part, is a bunch of physically gifted athletes. I'm guessing if there was a basketball IQ Test, the NBA players would score lower than the international players. But that's the point, the NBA isn't a league full of fundamentals anymore, it's a league of athletic freaks. So, that's why I think international basketball is fine with the rules the way they are; but I think the NBA game would be affected a lot by those simple rules being gone.

    Anyway, you’ve pushed my brain to its limits; that’s all I got for you!

  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger OVERWADED said…

    I got another question for the time being. What dunks will Dwight attempt tonight to try and win this contest?

    I've heard maybe a "kiss the rim jam". I've heard rumors of him asking the basket to be raised to 12 feet.

    The tallest player to ever win the contest was Larry Nance at 6-10; can Dwight become the tallest player to ever win the dunk contest? I like what Kobe had to say about it... "If a big guy can win it," Bryant said, "it's Dwight Howard."

    Kobe is also one of the judges.

  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    Did you happen to read that article on Sentinel's website about NBA being interested to bring all-star game back to Orlando if the new arena is built. I read through some of the comments under that article, and I couldn't help to put my dime in. Here is my comment:

    "Some of the grudgy comments are indicative of how clueless some people are. Since when people with no knowledge of basic economics and business development have earned the right to spew their biased ideas?"

    I think I have been very polite. Don't you think so?

  • At 7:14 PM, Blogger Big Figure said…

    I couldnt have said it better myself intro.And yeah matt i read some of those comments,to me the sentinel is for the common fan,none of the contributers here i would consider the casual/common fan,i used to think i was the biggest/most intuned magic fan,and then you guys showed me i wasnt alone.Also i'm not sure what dwight will attempt tonight,like you intro i've heard all rumors but nothing concrete to hang your hat on,to be honest i just hope dwight does something we havent seen,no re-creations or tribute dunks because of the judges.

  • At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Robert Fitzy said…

    To me the Offensive Interference rule is perfectly fine to me. It makes it fair. Say they took the rule out. The Offense can grab the ball off of the rim but the defense can't. That doesn't seem fair at all and would give a big advantage to the offense.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home