I like the rule, as long as they stay consistent. In the games I have watched, they have been. And what's the point of players complaining, anyway? Has anybody ever seen a ref change a call because the player presented a convincing argument? The players will adjust. Remember Kendrick Perkins in the finals last year? He was averaging a tech per game all postseason, but when he was one tech away from a suspension, he all of a sudden could control himself. It's an easy rule to follow. The guys you see getting techs for complaining at this point are just being selfish.
Somewhat. Doctors and nurses work together. Do players and refs really work together? Or is it more like the relationship people have with cops?
I think it's a stupid rule, and I liken it to the bullshit that the NFL is trying to push after all those hits a couple weeks ago. Hard hits are to the NFL as complaining is to the NBA.
I absolutely hate the new rule, for all the obvious reasons. If the poor mistreated refs were being mistreated, they could have called players and coaches for technicals before, without the "new" rule. For christ's sake, one of our guys pointed out of bounds last night -- no protest, no rushing the ref, no challenging the ref, no showing up the ref, no cussing at the ref -- just pointed out of bounds and got t'd up. It's bullshit. In the heat of a game, a player will have a reflexive emotional reaction, then immediately go on with the game without challenging the ref at all, and he will get t'd up. The league may throw a few token t's at Kome and Le'Me and some others, but not when tv ratings are on the line. I have no problem with limiting the amount of grief the refs have to take from the players and coaches, but this clearly isn't about that. If a player or coach is showing up the ref, or berating the ref, t him up. If the player reacts to a play in the heat of the game, then goes about his business, what's the point? I can only think of two: (1) to hide official incompetence and malfesance from the casual fan; and (2) another tool to control the outcome of games.
One thing that may change is the home court advantage for some teams. Take the Jazz tonight. One reason I hated going to games in the Delta Center was that the Jazz players and coaches could get the fans so riled up by flopping and complaing to the refs that the place would go crazy if they were ever down. Watching the Utah- Phoenix game tonight I did not see that emotion. Now the Suns had a lot to do with taking the fans out of the game, but IMO so did the new rules. The players could not easily incite the croud like they normally do. Neither did Sloan. Does no emotion from the players create less emotion for the fans? Does that help take away some of the Home court advantage?
I just wonder if Stern isn't trying to crack down on all complaining to eliminate the really bad stuff, but he'll back the refs off a bit after he feels that the players get the message. I just don't see how Stern would want an NBA devoid of any emotion.
What both ironic and stupid about the whole thing is that supposedly the fans wanted this change and I while I agree the complaining was out of control at times the constant T's are even more annoying and the way it kills the flow of the game is horrible. By "eliminating" one problem they mave created a new on the is even worse. Although as a Blazers fan I didnt mind the TV announcers pointed out the one of the T's the Blazers got the other night killed a fast break advantage the Clippers had. Not cool when that happens to us.
I noticed two instances where a demonstration T stopped a potentially good play by the other team. My immediate thought was that, lets say near the end of a close game, a player drives to the basket but is rejected, and the other team takes off on a fast break. Simply take a demonstration T immediately, claiming you were fouled, to stop the break. Hell, I'd instruct my players to do just that as a contingency play in the time out. Yes I know it costs the player $2000 (the equivalent of 25 cents to me). I'd find a way for the team to pay it. It's worth it.
Yes, it's worse this week. But it seems like a problem that largely goes away over time. Players are still used to whining all the time. If they consistently apply the rule players will adjust, there'll be fewer T's, and we'll also get less whining. Sort of like the change to the hand checking rule. At first it slowed the game down because fouls were getting called all the time. Players adjusted, though, and now the NBA is much faster paced.
They already can do that by drawing an intentional foul. I guess your point is that it's a way to circumvent the clear path rule. But if you realize your team is about to get dunked on and it's too late to commit normal foul without risking a clear path violation, is it really a good gamble to draw a tech? I mean, by that point the guy with the ball is at half court and the ref might just wait a half second before blowing the whistle. Besides, it's probably debatable whether it's more desirable to have an uncontested layup or 1 point and possession of the ball. Does the defense really gain much advantage by committing the tech? You send a 90% free throw shooter to the line, and you probably concede about 1 point per possession anyway, so it's pretty marginal. Giving up around 1.8 points per tech anyway (more against more efficient offensive teams). And there's always a chance the opponent buries a three pointer in the ensuing possession, so the tech in that instance costs you 4 points instead of the layup's 2, which can be a big drain on team momentum.
The refs would adapt to that. They already have the ability to wait until after the fast break is over to call the T. They would make more of an effort to wait. I agree with many of you who think it will ease up after a few months. It only makes sense to wait to see if the player continues to complain after 5-10 seconds. But I must admit it was kind of fun to watch players like Deron Williams struggling not to cry last night after not getting a call. Fun if my team is not playing. Frustrating if it was my team. There needs to be a compromise.
Great in theory, however we must remember these are NBA officials we're talking about. They will never be consistent. If anyone caught the Utah/Phoenix game last night, did you happen to see Al Jefferson raise both arms in protest over a call, and keep them up for about 6-7 seconds while looking at the ref, and not get a technical (like Armon). Or did you see Deron Williams slap his wrist three times while looking at the ref because he thought he was fouled and not get called for a technical, like the Blazers did? It's a total joke.
I wonder if the enforcement is spotty depending on refs. Seems like when you implement something like this, some refs are bound to just ignore it, some selectively enforce it on non-superstars, and some enforce it on everyone. Hopefully the NBA builds some consistency over time, as they really have in the past. (ie, refs pretty uniformly enforce the retarded "superstar" system). This is one of those things I'd wait a few weeks to really draw conclusions on for so many reasons. It's generally a bad idea to judge any major rule change off of what happens in the first few days.
Williams already had gotten a technical earlier, so the refs didn't want to throw him out of the game. Williams complains a lot so this rule will effect him.
Yeah, and I guess I'm ok with that. I don't want to see stars get thrown out of the game over this, because it really isn't necessary. Williams isn't going to push it by getting 1 tech every game and then dialing it down. That's basically conceding a point every night, which isn't going to happen under Jerry Sloan. This is one example where I think the superstar system is probably ok. But it kills me to have to admit that.
Ah I didn't realize this rule only applied to a players first technical and that a player can even put his hand on a ref (as Deron did) and not receive a 2nd T.
