Hey - We Made a Rule!

by 12sharks on Feb 17, 2009 7:49 AM PST Comment 33 comments

It looks like the Blazers will be the last team to ever score with six men on the court.

The NBA has added a rule that will close up an officiating loophole that was exposed in a game between the Celtics and Blazers on Dec. 30.

The Blazers inadvertently had six players on the floor against the Celtics. With 10.1 seconds left in the first half, Boston frantically tried to cover up defensively on an in-bounds play, but Portland's Travis Outlaw broke free and dunked.

here's the link

Now to just get that tricky medical retirement contract thing straightened out..

2 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sweet

The Blazers are famous.

Rec this comment for good luck.

by Dragline on Feb 17, 2009 7:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I didn't know who we were until I saw this story

by Mortimer on Feb 17, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're that team

that used to be talked about here before OKC became THE story right? I can’t remember it’s been so long hang on I need to go get my KD jerseys out of the Dryer. Presti you da man!

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 17, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OKC is my pick to win it all this year

by Mortimer on Feb 17, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What is that rumble off in the distance?

It’s…the….THUNDER RAWR!

Karma

by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 17, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

tee hee

I peed a litttle.

"Bayless is awesome." -Clyde Drexler

by pxilpooshr on Feb 17, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

good change.

The revised rule will allow the non-offending team to accept the result of the play and shoot a technical foul or decline the play’s outcome and shoot a technical, with the offending team, in essence, creating a “do-over.” In other words, the Celtics would have been able to disallow the Trail Blazers’ points and shoot a technical, followed by Portland inbounding.

the celtics act like we wouldnt have gotten the ball back. psh. anything could have happened. whine whine whine is what i read from the boston side in this article.

by Blazerland on Feb 17, 2009 7:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Now Boston can't get us back! Ha ha!

".. is gumby an alien?"

by staylost on Feb 17, 2009 8:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Accept or decline the posession??

That’s just stupid. Basketball is a fast game. It needs fast decisions, not consultations and huddles between refs and coaches. I don’t think this particular rule will cause a problem because we aren’t likely to see 6 men on the court again for some time, but it is part of the general trend toward review, replay, slow it down, turn it into something boring.

I like how the article blames the C’s loss entirely on that play as well. Enough already.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Feb 17, 2009 8:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not a tough decision...

Basically if the offending team scores, or is fouled as a result, then the play would be declined. However, if the basket is missed, of there is a turnover, then the play will be accepted. There isn’t going to be a 30sec huddle by the coaches at center court to decide if they want to give the other team the points or not. It really won’t be a hard decision.

by actwentysix on Feb 17, 2009 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like..

to see Popovich with a challenge flag.

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Feb 17, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

pop would never do that…more then the legal amount of times allowed per game.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 17, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, with the infrequency that this rule would be applied...

I think the delay would be a minimum 3 or 4 minutes while the refs confer, the coaches rage and the announcers give different versions of the rule, all inaccurate.

However, since this particular one would be infrequent, I don’t care. I’m worried about the bigger picture. The Frank’s 2000 inch TV sized picture.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Feb 17, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

rec

+ 1 for the accurate quip about the announcers
+ 1 for the Weird Al reference

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Feb 17, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m worried about the bigger picture.

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Feb 17, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You too?

Good, I thought I was the only one concerned.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Feb 17, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What's the bigger-picture worry?

That the NBA’s making too many rule changes? That this acts as a precedence for something?

I have no idea what your bigger picture is as far as this rule change is concerned, or what’s so fretful about it.

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Feb 17, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t want the game to be slowed down by in-game review, or for the potential results to be altered after the fact based on review. In a nutshell, I believe the refs call is always “correct”. Yes, some calls are botched, even badly, but they are human and the game is full of gray areas and calls will always be subject to debate. If we go down the road of expecting every single call to be 100% accurate, and we are going to do that by process of review, the game will suffer.

This rule change isn’t the greastest illustration of that point. It was just a stepping stone for me to get on my soapbox. I’m done now and will return to generally idiotic comments that add nothing to the discussion.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Feb 17, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If the celts are going to lose home court advantage

because of a play whose end result would have been a replay of the possession, I say good riddance. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the green club burn. Well except for the blazers winning a championship, or the Lakers tanking the rest of the season and missing the playoffs.

by premthegrem on Feb 17, 2009 8:11 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

The Blazer Rules

I like it.

Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.

by prezofdeath on Feb 17, 2009 11:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I propose the name "Travis Outlaw rule" since he was the one who scored

Or “Greg Oden rule” since he was the guy who was supposed to leave the floor

Brandon is one of those quiet assassins. - Chris Paul

by Norsktroll on Feb 17, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Trout's Law

by CatMan2 on Feb 17, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How do they screw this rule up?

The other team gets to choose, are you kidding me? WHY WOULD THEY EVER CHOOSE TO COUNT THE BASKET?

Picture Phil Jackson on the sideline. “Well crap, they had 6 guys on the court, but that was a sweet dunk. Count the bucket please.”

Seriously.
If the bucket is made, say nope, give the other team a FT, and let the offense try again with 5 people.
If the bucket is missed, say lol you failed to score with 6, give the other team a FT, and let them inbound at mid court.

Why this is up to the coach is beyond me.

by Zaig on Feb 17, 2009 12:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's not just to choose to count the basket

It’s to choose to accept the outcome, whatever the outcome is.

So, let’s say instead of Oden passing to a dunking Outlaw, the ball bobbled off of Outlaw’s hands and out of bounds. Doc Rivers could then choose whether to accept the outcome (a turnover, and his ball, plus the technical FT) or not accept it, and it becomes the Blazers ball again after a technical FT by Boston.

Sometimes, even if the other team has 6 players on the floor, the outcome could benefit you and you want the outcome to stand as it is. That’s what they’re saying.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Feb 17, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Same deal though just broaden the term.

If the play benefits offense, redo play.
If the play benefits defense, don’t redo play.

I can’t think of a circumstance where a coach would want to go against this. I even considered silly shot clock/game clock issues, but when it comes down to it: Having Ball > Not Having Ball.

by Zaig on Feb 17, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

End of play scenario

Bad guys down 3, they got 6 guys on the court and in the confusion hit a two.

The refs realize what happened, ask the good coach what he wants to do.

He’ll say let the basket stand, we get a FT, plus the ball, instead of giving the other team the chance to still tie it up.

The way the league defined it now is just to address any possible scenario. Most times, the coach will make the obvious decision that no one would disagree with, and it would seem easy enough to just make that the default rule. But there are always exceptions, and sometimes the coach would rather count the other team’s bucket.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Feb 17, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like something Dantoni would do

Karma

by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 17, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahhh

Yes unfortunately I can foresee a time when coaches can “accept” or “decline” the foul. Ugh.

by sPresley on Feb 17, 2009 12:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

great...another item of infamous basketball lore that our teams great name is associated with....

I mean…..bowie……

walton….

oneil…..

need I say more….

this’ll be another chapter of the " why you can’t blame the trailblazers" segments….

(despite it not being alllllll that bad….I just see it as another wrinkle on our otherwise pretty face)

but I’m strange like that, it’s just how I roll.

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out burns out farms and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

by faith on Feb 17, 2009 12:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Fine Journalism

The revised rule will allow the non-offending team to accept the result of the play and shoot a technical foul or decline the play’s outcome and shoot a technical, with the offending team, in essence, creating a “do-over.” In other words, the Celtics would have been able to disallow the Trail Blazers’ points and shoot a technical, followed by Portland inbounding.

it would also allow the celtics to do.. EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE!

i'm ready to graduate now.

kthx.

by hossticles on Feb 17, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs