Would it count in basketball, if a player found themselves directly under the hoop, threw the ball up through the hoop from underneath, and the ball fell back down, again through the hoop?
from Slovene@feddit.nl to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 27 Aug 06:29
https://feddit.nl/post/20120613
from Slovene@feddit.nl to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 27 Aug 06:29
https://feddit.nl/post/20120613
#nostupidquestions
threaded - newest
Only if a dog does it.
Is that the plot of Air Bud? Idk, I only know the meme
I believe it goes to the other team and doesn’t count.
i think it cancels the point out, you lose a point then gain a point.
I have no idea of basketball rules. So if a player throws the ball upwards through the opponent’s hoop, they lose a point?
Yeah but thats for both teams rings tho, they had to impliment it after Yao Ming kept standing under the ring and puting the ball up through the ring over and over during a game.
Who cares if your team got zero points as long as the opposing team got -300 points. Bigger number still wins.
Say hello to negative scores!
In the NBA, Rule 6.I.e.2. shows
As an infraction that awards the other team possesion of the ball. So if this happens and the referee blows the whistle to call it out or even indicates that this infraction occurred after the fact, then the ball was dead and so the ball falling back in the basket does not count for points.
Same in NCAA and FIBA. The moment the ball enters the cylinder from below, it’s the same as going out of bounds. Play stops and the ball is awarded to the team that did not touch the ball last.
Lame.
Not really.
I’m no basketball fan (not a sports fan at all), but imagine if this were permitted - you’d have a constant tussle under the basket, where all guys did was work on this technique.
The rules change to address how players adapt.
Just make the ball going up through the basket -1 point.
And then let the other team throw the ball up through your basket to decrease your score. Now you have to defend your net as well as try to make shots on it.
Why would players practice a technique that involves passing the ball through a hoop not much larger than the ball itself twice for no point advantage when it is easier to dunk or take an easy layup?
No one would be seriously “practicing” this technique. There are already “tussles” under the basket because it’s the highest-percent shots on the court, and there is a three-second violation in place specifically so bigs can’t camp out there.
This is a rule because it was made a rule. If the rule was removed, it would have no recognizable impact on the game. But, for that same reason, there’s really no point in changing it.
Where is that in relation to the section saying dogs can’t play?
Isn’t it a lane violation just being under the hoop in the first place?
No it won’t be counted as it’s considered a ‘violation’. Ref will blow the whistle stating as such and the ball will be handed over to the defending team.
no.
but if you throw it backwards through your own hoop…
that should definitely take points off the other team, right? (/s. it has no robots and is therefore boring to me. Maybe if they added flame traps or, like, electrotraps. i dunno. that just seems sadistic.) (baseball needs the trap-makeover first, though. it’s only slightly better than golf.)
I think you might be thinking of Orcs Must Die! instead of basketball.
I’d say baseball is worse than golf. Baseball is supposedly a spectator sport, while golf never was.
Golf is a game. Yes, there’s physical ability involved, but it has a handicap system - meaning you’re always playing against yourself. Players of disparate abilities and skill can play together. You don’t need anyone else to play a game of golf (in fact, I’d love to be able to play by myself).
Baseball, a “team sport”, has developed into batter VS pitcher, it’s a rather binary game even when the ball is fielded. Get rid of “over the fence”, make that a foul, (and move the pitchers mound farther away) and you’ll see the game become much more interesting. How can you have a sport where some players are too big to run, because home runs are a valid, and frequent event? I’ve been to a total 3 games in my life, each had more than one ball over the fence. Clearly it’s not hard enough.
Moving the mound would reduce speeds so we’ll see more nuanced batting. As it is we largely get attempts at the fence, or bunts, as anything else is too easily caught. With slower ball speeds, we may see more fast grounders between base lines.
The blatant steroid use was a major contributor to this issue.
But changing any of that reduces the marketing value, and baseball is probably the worst offender when it comes to changing to meet marketing (and that’s saying something, with the BS done by the NFL).
Futurama’s “Blurnsball” lampooned it the best.
(I’m not even a sports fan, at all. Never watch anything, just don’t find watching others ay interesting).
Also, golf already has traps.
Just saying ;)
But you’re right, golf was never meant for spectators, the two are more less just as boring as each other, though.
Golf has an advantage in that most people who watch it, usually put it on in the background.
I could be wrong but I seem to remember this is one of the reasons why the baskets have a net.
You’re not allowed to do that but if the net wasn’t there then in pre-video games the refs might not be able to spot if the ball went up through the hoop.
Think they were also to stop players reaching up through the hoop to defend as well.