-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is advancing the ball with a timeout in the end of NBA games the most BS rule in sports?
- Thread starter Squid Bunny
- Start date
the rule has been around forever in the nba (doesn't mean it's good) so i'm used to it. it has the intended effect of creating more entertainment/drama at the end of games. i don't like the rule. i think suddenly shrinking the playing area in the final 2 minutes and allowing the offense to get 47 feet up the court for the cost of a timeout is stupid.
at least college doesn't have this rule...yet.
of course, imagine how shitty the rule would be in the NFL: no kickoffs in the final 2 minutes of games, instead if the team receiving the ball has a timeout their possession can start at the 50 yard line instead.
at least college doesn't have this rule...yet.
of course, imagine how shitty the rule would be in the NFL: no kickoffs in the final 2 minutes of games, instead if the team receiving the ball has a timeout their possession can start at the 50 yard line instead.
Last edited:
An easy fix would be to decrease the number of fouls you can give before you foul out. Set it to 3 and you best believe everyone would be doing their best to hit a ball instead of a shoulder. 😂😂😂
Honestly I can't stand the fact that the last 2 minutes of the game take about 24 minutes to play.
Some shameful shit lately in the bubble, damn. Can barely enjoy the games (which have been pretty good in spite of the officiating)
I would do the opposite. Players, especially the star ones that people come out to see, being able to completely foul out of a game or have to sit out due to foul trouble over common fouls always seemed dumb to me. What I would do is keep the 6 foul limit, but every foul after that that a player commits gives the opposing team one free throw and possession back. On a shooting foul, it'd be 2 (or three if its a 3 pointer) free throws and possession back.
Yeah, fouls in basketball have always been balanced with it not hurting the product. Using the Shaq example I mentioned above. Refs can't call everything. It would hurt the product as a fan.
Moreover, as you said, the NBA is a superstar league. You can them fouling out every game.
That's what the Elam ending is for. They implemented it in this year's NBA all-star game and it seemed like a great change.
I've never seen a ref that has more influence on the game than NBA refs.
I think football has just as much of a problem with officiating, with how certain players are officiated, and with how the refs decide what is or isn't holding or pass interference depending on the game situation, much like how NBA refs will decide to swallow their whistle late in a game (to the point where fans get angry if they don't, see the last Heat/Bucks game). Yes the refs can do better, and should, but I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that in real time basketball and football are probably incredibly difficult to officiate, especially some of the smaller nuance that is involved in foul calls or things like holds.
While the Elam ending is both fair and keeps the pace up, I actually greatly dislike it. Buzzer beaters are the greatest moments in sports, those moments when one final, miraculous play is made, or the team loses. The Elam ending makes that impossible, so I reject it.
Another random rule that I think is kind of dumb but was probably instituted for the sake of the entertainment value (speed up the pace): Why is there an 8 second limit to get the ball over half court? If a team wants to fuck around and waste their shot clock on the opposite side of the court...let them?
Yeah I don't like this rule personally, or when the end is filled with fouls, it's why I can't get into basketball. The end of close games is annoying to watch in practice.
Protecting a lead in the NFL is cynical but still sort of within the spirit of the game. In hockey and soccer it's fun seeing teams throw caution to the wind and getting rid of their goalies, or bringing the keeper up as a field player.
Protecting a lead in the NFL is cynical but still sort of within the spirit of the game. In hockey and soccer it's fun seeing teams throw caution to the wind and getting rid of their goalies, or bringing the keeper up as a field player.
I'm not very familiar with the rules of basketball, but I have to say that I always hate how often NFL games typically come down to controlling the clock, as the methods for doing so generally make the action really uninteresting to watch.
Well yeah. If you called everything by the absolute strict letter of the rules, there would be no game.
Jep. Basketball could be so much more popular if the game was just more free flowing. But imagine watching Basketball for the first time and there's a timeout, foul, ad break every 10 seconds. Shit is infuriating, even for fans of the sport.
I never understood the point of timeouts anyway. Is there any other sport that trusts his players' decision making less than Basketball? Why do the players need to be micromanaged by the coach every few minutes? Just let them play. The coach is already right at the sideline, just him talking to his players during the play should be enough. I know they would never get rid of timeouts for the ad money but I wish they would.
OP
OP
I think that's to make kicking (and especially punting) a bit more skill based, you can't just kick the ball incredibly hard into the stands and make the other team start at the 1.
That actually happened in a game a few years back, a crazy Cavs/Lakers contest where LA only had 8 players and lost 3 of them to injury and another fouled out. That meant he had to stay in the game but every foul he did would be a technical.
I think it's good. It forces teams, even in the lead, to at least advance the ball. It also makes for good trapping scenarios, where a team desperately defends to get a quick turnover. Just like in the Bucks/Heat game (notwithstanding the fact that Jimmy Butler was maybe fouled).
This sounds like some Rock n' Jock basketball. All they need is the 25 & 50 point baskets now.
That's what i mean though, the rule sort of exists to make late game scenarios more interesting because it makes it harder for a team with a lead to waste time or keep the ball away if you have less court to maneuver. I don't even necessarily think they should do away with it, I only brought it up because much like the rule in the OP, it's sort of a rule that doesn't make a lot of sense in a vacuum, but was probably created to make the game itself more entertaining in some way.
Rest? You can substitute players at will, if someone needs a rest, just sub them out.
Now it's no coincidence that timeouts are only really a thing in american sports, the most capitalistic country in the world. Timeouts aren't really "needed" in Basketball and there's no doubt in my mind that the game would be much better, more popular and more entertaining without them. But obviously american sports leagues would never get rid of the commercial revenue generated thanks to timeouts, that's the only reason for their existence imo.
This isn't a problem. It adds more entertainment to an entertainment product, mission accomplished.
It's not like you can just always call one. You gotta have timeouts to use one
I think the inconsistencies of 3 seconds in the paint calls are terrible. I hate the modern flagrant.
They go TOO far in "cleaning up the game". When guys are getting testy out there, the quick technicals are fine and seem to work, much like a yellow card. Too many incidental contact calls are getting called as flagrant. Two guys jump and collide into each other. In super slow motion it's not a pretty sight. Ok let's call it flagrant!
It's not like you can just always call one. You gotta have timeouts to use one
I think the inconsistencies of 3 seconds in the paint calls are terrible. I hate the modern flagrant.
They go TOO far in "cleaning up the game". When guys are getting testy out there, the quick technicals are fine and seem to work, much like a yellow card. Too many incidental contact calls are getting called as flagrant. Two guys jump and collide into each other. In super slow motion it's not a pretty sight. Ok let's call it flagrant!
Last edited:
You cannot substitute at will. You need a dead ball stoppage to do so. A timeout does that without committing a foul or violation.
True but you can always adjust rules slightly in a world without TOs. Allow quick substitutions during inbound plays or whatever.
TOs actually have way more of a right to exist in Soccer than Basketball, cause you can't freely sub players out and the field is huge making it impossible for the coach to give directions to all of the players. And sometimes you play in incredibly hot conditions. Yet, if FIFA suggested introducing TOs in soccer, fans all around the world would see it as blasphemy towards the game and it would never come to pass. And rightfully so.
I admit last second inbound plays after a timeout like this make for dramatic moments, but you could always compromise and allow a timeout per team in the last minute of the quarter or something like this. But my overall point stands. TOs have no real benefit for the game, actually make the game way less entertaining and prevent them from becoming more popular and only exist as a way to generate revenue for the leagues.
Why should timeouts stop runs though? Why do we punish the "better" team by breaking their momentum? Why do we give a team the opportunity to keep the ball on an impeding turnover? There's no real argument for timeouts here. The only argument is that it has always been this way.
In a world without TOs, would someone really argue for TOs by saying that we need them so that teams can keep the ball on ball scrambles? Nobody would argue for TOs as they would just completely break the enjoyment of the game.
It's funny, there was actually a discussion in Soccer about introducing timeouts a few years ago. And I just read some of the user reactions on forums. And some of your points are used as an argument against timeouts. For example why punish teams with momentum? Why have coaches micromanage the players? Why unnecessarily break the flow of the game etc.
Like I said, compromise and allow subs on inbound plays and give teams one timeout in the last minute of a quarter or half. Game would be so much more entertaining.
Last edited:
Ehhh timeouts are a bigger part of the game than you think. There are some legit ad break timeouts in NBA, idk about other leagues, but it is annoying.
On the other hand, timeouts can stop runs, rest, draw a play, keep the ball on an impending turnover, advance the ball, time to whine to the refs about video review...just to name a few
Basketball isn't soccer. It's played in 2-5 minute bursts, not an endurance contest
That kemba theis move yesterday was awesome. I was 99% sure we had it in the bag. Jaylen didn't switch correctly. Oh well. He had 4 blocks and I don't think the raps will win the series after what I've seen so far. Perimeter defense is our forte (most of the time :))
It's a lot like the no huddle offense when there is a minute left and your team is up by 2 points. I'm not legally allowed to complain cause I'm a pats fan too; Brady/Hoodie helped make come backs en vogue.
How many possessions are in an average NBA game compared to an NFL game, though?
I'll agree that if they do it in the last two minutes, why not advance the ball on every timeout to at least give some consistency? But the rule itself is fine.
The straight answer to this is basketball is not soccer. They are different sports. You don't seem to have an understanding or an appreciation for the physical stress that basketball commands, which confirm my suspicion that your arguments were colored by soccer sensibilities.
Basketball is built to be back and forth and fast paced. The current incarnation of the sport is built around being able to call TO in a way soccer is built around not having time stoppages. Just flat removing TOs from basketball would not make the sport any better, similar to how instituting TOs to soccer wouldn't elevate the game.
For example: could you even articulate what rule change would make sense to adjust the pace to allow for no timeouts in basketball? It would require fundamentally changing how the game is played.
Disagree, transition is a key component in any winning team at Basketball.
Limit teams to two timeouts a half and give teams the option of taking a free inbound after a foul. I just fixed the end of basketball games.
OP
OP
The Raptors themselves are built on a strong transition offense and the Celtics on a strong transition defense.