New officiating rules in the NBA, Love them or hate them? What are your thoughts on the new NBA rules?

Question

This week is opening week for the 2007 NBA season and I think the new rules suck. Constant whistles being blown before players could even dribble the ball. So many players were thrown with tech. fouls and even ejected from the game for stupid stuff. I think Stern is trying to take out all the fun in the NBA games. I think he is trying to turn the NBA into corporate america and the NBA or any sport could never be that way.

Answer 1

I think a lot of the new rules go over board, too. But, remember that the refs tend to over-blow their whistle at the beginning of the season. They're under close watch and they'll relax when the league starts to relax a few months into it. It's how things always are.

There were SO many ejections after just the first two days, though. It's frustrating.

Answer 2

Well the majority of the new rules and officiating emphasis are geared toward offense and making it easier to score more points. This is done to try to make the scores higher and the games more exciting, which in turn is supposed to equal more attention and more money for the management. The technical fouls are going to be called more often because of David Stern's new "zero-tolerence" stance on player behavior. This is also geared to making more money. In interviews Stern has said that the largest market group, white middle-America, doesn't associate with the image of the hip-hop lifestyle of today's players. He is trying to make the league more family friendly. With the recent occurances such as Ron Artest's big brawl, this may be a good idea.

I think that as soon as players get accustomed to the new rules scores in games will be higher and we will have a return to the days when average scores in NBA games were well over 100 pts and all stats were higher. The game should improve because of these rules, it will just take some time to get used to them.

Answer 3

the call became incorrect. you're lacking one significant factor and misinterpreting yet another. First, you're misinterpreting the 0.3 2d rule. 0.3 seconds is the minimum quantity of time that desires to be on the clock to get off a shot. The NBA rule you disregarded is that there 'would desire to be conclusive video data with the intention to overturn a decision that became made on the court'. The ball would have been touching Miller's fingertip, yet you could't tutor it as certainty from any perspective. My factor is that there became rather no longer something conclusive approximately it and the play could have stood as referred to as on the court. EDIT - Sorry orzoff, yet you're actually not analyzing the rule of thumb, properly. that's basic with the aid of fact the 'Trent Tucker Rule' and that's fantastically sparkling. I related it, below. Plus, if it became so conclusive, then why did it take over 10 minutes for them to decide? Sorry guy, however the best judgment does not make sense. No conclusive data potential the call on the floor would desire to stand. if that they had reported it became no stable on the floor, i'd agree and say it became no stable.

Answer 4

the new rules suck because they don't let the players play everything is pretty much determined by the officials and it just sucks to have an outcome of a game decided by the officials

Answer 5

I don't really like the new balls or rules, and now they are calling everything a technical foul.

Answer 6

I hate the new rules. I think they have turned the NBA into communist Cuba where there's no freedom of speech. LOL

Answer 7

The new rules make me sick I hate them with a passion.

Answer 8

they suck because the players dont really matter anymore.
it takes away all the fun

Answer 9

i hate them