Read the debate intro and Babe Ruthless’ argument that the NBA’s rule of allowing a second step to the travelling rule was a value-adding decision.
I do not consider myself a traditionalist or a purist when it comes to sports. I have no problem with rule changes, innovations, or any other variations that may affect the games that I love. To the contrary, I would actually consider myself an advocate for those changes. The only thing I care about is that the administrators and league officials do everything in their power to make the games as entertaining and competitive as possible. If that means allowing base runners in baseball to carry their bats around the bases with the permission to use them in an effort to disrupt potential double-plays, so be it. Just make sure that the change ADDS VALUE to the game being played.
An example of a rule change that I am completely in favor of was the NFL’s recent decision to remove the “push-out” rule. The change, which now requires that a receiver must catch the ball with both feet in-bounds, REGARDLESS of the post-catch contact from a defender, has improved the game. As a result of this rule change, there are fewer questions about subjectivity in the game, with less opportunity for a referee’s opinion to influence the game. That rule change added value.
On the other hand, changing the wording of the rules in the NBA to officially allow players the freedom to take a second step without dribbling adds NO VALUE to basketball.
What is the PROPOSED value of this update to the rules?
It should be noted that this is not actually a change at all. NBA officials have admittedly allowed players to take two steps without dribbling for many years. Common sense dictates that a rule change is called for when an issue has arisen. For example, rule changes that improve player safety or clarify a discrepancy in the current policies. In this case, however, players were ALREADY taking two steps and officials were ALREADY very public in their allowance of that practice.
This situation is like writing an official rule stating that players should wear athletic shoes, rather than sandals, when playing basketball. The practice is already taking place, which leads me to question what the NBA officials and owners hope to gain by formalizing it. There is not any tangible benefit gained by making this change, so why bother in the first place? The only positive outcome is if nothing changes in how the game is played, thereby making the whole update unnecessary. What is more likely is that players will abuse and push the limits of this “new” rule, just as they did the old one.
Give them an inch, and they will take a mile (or at least three steps)!
On the road, many drivers choose to speed, rather than obey the speed limit. In fact, I would be willing to bet that almost EVERY driver has gotten upset at least once because they were stuck behind someone following the law. The proper way to address the problem of speeding on the roads, though, is NOT to raise the speed limit. It is foolish to assume that an increase in the speed limit results in less speeding. Instead, it will encourage drivers to only push the limit further. It does not matter WHAT the speed limit is, because most people will drive 5-10 miles per hour faster REGARDLESS of where it is set.
Likewise, how long will it be before referees begin allowing ANOTHER step, on top of the additional one that is now permitted by this new rule? Players were by rule permitted only one step, but referees allowed for a second if it was part of a continuous motion to the basket. Now that a full second step is permissible by rule, what is to stop a player from taking those two full steps on top of a third step that is “really just part of the continuous motion to the basket?” The reason this rule is in place is because officials did not enforce the old rule, and players took advantage of it. Why should this new rule be any different? Players will test the limits, and we will soon see the players sprinting to the hoop from the three-point line without ever putting the ball on the ground.
This so-called rule update was a mistake by the NBA. It does not resolve any problems that would have previously existed in the league, and it does not improve the presentation of the game in any way. Instead, it only changes the problem, allowing players to continue to push the limits of the travelling rules. It is foolish to expect that the officials will suddenly enforce this new rule when they had never enforced the previous version. At best, this was a waste of time and energy that will affect no change whatsoever. At worst, this will open the door to increased abuse and further violation of rules that will not be properly enforced.
