Three Seconds Vs. Offsides
On Friday, during an otherwise nondescript meeting at the Orlando headquarters of Sun Sports, I came up with something that I thought was mildly brilliant.
It happened to be a planning meeting for the upcoming season of Orlando Magic basketball on Sun Sports, but somehow, the conversation turned to soccer. Context: we were discussing better ways of explaining fouls and violations on the air, and one of the attendees at the meeting - Vitor, a big-time soccer guy - used the World Cup as an analogy.
Vitor pointed out that during the World Cup, the American announcers worked extremely hard to detail the rules of the game, assuming - correctly, as I have discussed in this space before - that many viewers could use the refresher course. Once the meeting was over, I pulled him aside in order to test my own theoretically brilliant analogy.
"Vitor," I said, "do you understand the NBA's three-second violation?"
He said that he did.
I continued: "Don't you think that the offsides rule in soccer is, in fact, a version of basketball's three-second rule?"
Look at it logically. Offsides in soccer, as I understand it, occurs when an offensive player is nearer the opponent's goal than any opposing non-goalie prior to the ball being "served" or kicked towards the goal area. The rule makes sense; without it, a team could stack offensive players close to the opposing goal and wait for the long pass.
Doesn't that sound like a three-second violation? "Three seconds" is called in the NBA when an offensive player camps out in the paint. Same idea. Were either tactic legal, coaches would simply shuttle their best offensive players into an area close to the goal, with instructions to wait for the home run pass. Imagine what Shaq's career scoring average would be if there were no three-second violation.
So my allegedly brilliant theory was this: if World Cup referees were empowered to call "three seconds," or something similar, in place of the phrase "offsides," American fans - and all soccer fans - would easily get it. I nearly sprained my shoulder patting myself on the back with this insight.
Vitor smiled, and agreed with me. Then he added this: "Actually, I think it would be better if the NBA got rid of 'three seconds' and just called it 'offsides.' Because that's basically what it is."
Damn you, Vitor. Damn you.
Wouldn't that be GREAT in basketball? Further, shouldn't NBA refs be required to announce the violation to the crowd, just like the NFL?
"Offsides. Number 32, Heat. Magic ball."
Just trying to make the world a better place for sports fans.
Labels: basketball
posted by Whit Watson at 9:32 PM
2 Critiques:
Aren't there violations every 30 seconds in NBA play? Seems like the refs would get tired of making the announcements, and it would further slow down a game that already stops too damn often.
I'd managed to stay blissfully unaware of the three seconds rule (I really don't watch much squeakball), but I already knew what offsides was... if not from my days as a middle school soccer star (ha) then as a long-time hockey fan.
7/15/2006 9:57 AM
Hey Whit, I'm a big fan, watch STL every week and try to get my emails on the show haha.
Anyway, I don't like the idea of refs stopping the action to announce the call to the crowd because basketball at its best is a fast paced game and it would slow down the game too much, there is a good amount of calls throughout a game so it would really be counter productive. Not only that but I feel 90% of basketball fans in attendance understand the signals when there is a call, so I don't think it is a problem. Still a good idea, I just don't agree.
Curtis H.
Casselberry, FL
7/17/2006 6:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home