It Goes Both Ways

By: Jonathan Seidel

Easier scoring and personal vitality: the league’s concern for the player

Ben Taylor from Thinking Basketball made a video concerning the NBA’s continued ease of offence. Taylor argues that players kept pushing the boundaries and referees altered the interpretation of the rules. The rules are still there without any language change. The nature of these changes boils down to an emphasis on the offensive player. For more mobility and autonomy, for the subject against the object. Cases include: dribbling, gather step, in the act of shooting, flopping and of course lowering the shoulder and fouling. The first four are liberations from rules while the last one penalises the defence. In the end the defensive player not the rulebook is neglected for more offence. 

The mark of NBA development is offensive autonomy. The rules have been on the books but the referees ignoring them. Before moderns argue that contemporary players are so much more athletic and better, it is important to recognise the inherent advantages they have over the plumbers of old. Using dribbling as an example. Up to the seventies, if one’s hand moved from above the ball, they would be called for carrying. As players pushed the rules in the eighties moving their hand to the side of the ball, it provided more leeway and more protection of the ball. Not only would the referees call a carry but it also exposed the ball to the defence. If the player was a subpar dribbler, the defence could press and concentrating on ensuring his hand was firmly on the top of the ball, the dribbler would lose sight of the defence and lose the ball. As the hand was able to move from on top to the side, the dribbler was able to control the ball better and also cross over easily. It wasn’t that they only had one hand or were too green for crossovers, they couldn’t. It was hard enough dribbling with one hand. Yet once the ball could be palmed a little more, the dribbler had more leeway to exploit the defence.

Today, players can palm the ball. Placing their hand under the ball and carrying it. Able to palm it and switch hands instantly. While their non-dominant hand is inadequate for dribbling, by holding the ball they can protect it even in their weaker hand. The rule still states that one cannot move their hand from the top of the ball but referees do not count it. The custom of palming has overruled the codified rule. Yet this isn’t only a disregard for rules but an advantage to the offence over the defence. This has enabled the offence to move ever so quickly as if travelling since he need not actually place the ball down. He can palm it and hold it close to his chest keeping it away from the defender. While it makes the defender work harder it also placed him at a disadvantage. By the rules of the eighties today’s actions are a travel+double-dribble+carry. Breaking these rules enables the offensive player to get a leg up on the defender. He can hold the ball where the defender can’t reach it. Possession is in the hands of the offensive player and the defender is reaching for nought. This isn’t only about the rule book but even the disposition of the defence. 

The gather step is another which has given the the offence an advantage. Any slight awkward movement would be called a travel back in the seventies. While they may have been overtly strict, they played by the rules. In time the rules became lax and referees swallowed their whistle more often. An extra step to the basket would enable the offender to travel. In the motion of scoring. They have an extra step or two to gather their momentum toward the basket. Like a game of handball were the momentum of firing the ball into an empty net. The player is able to lift himself toward the rim ever quicker and can manoeuvre with ease with his feet. The step back has also gotten this gather step. Where players do a step back pick up their dribble and then more steps backward. The offensive player doesn’t need to gather the ball from the floor to his body to his shooting form. Rather he already has the ball in his shooting pocket then steps back ready to fire. The defender has to contain a player who can fire with space and ready motion. Back to handball how many times does the defender block the offensive players throw, not many so too here despite the ball being bigger. 

The biggest change is contact. Previously, lowering one’s shoulder or any intentional contact by the offence was called an offensive fall. This may have been a little too far. The balance for many years was a no call. Maybe sufficient leaning in to draw a fall would warrant an offensive but not anymore. Offensive initiated contact has been called a defensive fall. Defenders can’t play defence if they cannot touch the offensive player. Long gone are the days of hard fouls and hand checking. These days players place their hands behind their backs. They sag off in order for the referees to not call a foul. In the previous cases the referees ignored the penalty but here have shifted the burden. Calling dubious falls that are manipulated by the offence. Cases of lowering elbows, rip throughs, and leg kicks. Players have flopped on both sides of the ball but exaggerating contact receives every call but no punishment. The game becomes a theatre. Flopping on the defensive end seems to be a way to rebalance the offensive might. Offensive contact has crippled the defence making the opponent inoperable in his purpose. 

Referees/the league did provide offence more leeway. Making the game faster and more exciting from different areas of the field. They may not have scored as many points but they could do cool moves. They could be more lethal from various parts. It made scoring a more plausible possibility. It made playing the game easier and giving smaller players more advantages. The league never changed the rules instead deciding not enforce the ones they had. The offensive player was seemingly handicapped by the rules. It wasn’t enough. Leeway and flexibility were necessary. Yet this came at a price. While placing the offensive player against the rules, it effectively demoralised the defence. The defence was crippled by giving the offensive player an endless supply of power ups. At least with hand checking, the defensive player could keep up. In a more physical game, less flopping was honourable. There is physicality in the game but it has aided the offensive player more than the defensive player. The defender is forced to play with his hands and body off the offensive player. 

The defender is playing by the rules while the referees are playing by an agenda. The defender should have nothing to fear. He is following the rulebook but only he is. The offensive player has exploited the rules and the referee policeman say nothing. They allow it. They promote it. When the defender does the best he can, he is penalised. He can’t catch a break. He is a law-abiding player that is penalised while the criminal is permitted. The league has allowed this rampant insolence to go on for too long. Defence is but a rarity. While some point to the talent, it should go both ways. If you can shoot really well you can defend really well as well. There are still players who can shoot but not defend, not many on the opposite end. Dennis Rodman and recently Tony Allen are of the few that come to mind. It is not about how many points you can put up but how well you can defend. If you score ten points and your assignment scores twenty you are -10 but if you score 8 and he scores 2 then you at +6. Talent works both ways, especially with the apparent athletic advancements of the age. 

All this to point out how the rules codified are cemented in law but are mere lore. The referees run the show. The defender is but a nuisance. More offence so penalise the defence. Chain him and watch him squirm. If he prevents a score punish him. The agenda has been more offence but that comes at a price of defensive capability as well as competitive enjoyment to watch. A high scoring game is enjoyable if it achieved not if it is given freely.  

Visual Faith

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wax museums and rural life: surrealism and sensationalism (Eco, 12)

The visual may seem more realistic but it cannot replace the event. Yet many times it does. The participation in such glorious recreation is itself a hodgepodge attempt. It is a false hope to reconstruct that which can never be mimicked. The tradeoff is dramatic flare.

Documentaries try to tell the full truth or at least we would hope they are honest. Unlike book adaptations the documentary is accepted as canon. Documentaries are truth tellers. Yet this trust from the narrational voice educating the viewer comes off as authentic. They are teaching, how could they lie? Why would they lie? The power of a documentary is not only in the visual but in the realistic persona. Yet just as a bookie will criticise the cinematic changes so too the knowledgeable can poke holes in the documentary. Documentaries are trusted for their tedious educational nature but such education is not always the whole truth and biases seep through the cracks to promote an agenda.

Documentaries do add the dramatic flare for entertainment. The information must be taken with a grain of salt. The interesting part is that the cinematic ought to be second to the textbook. A book is more honest since it just accumulates data. Yet a visual is by and large false because it requires realistic promotion. A historical figure has more to question as there is no visual footage. At least contemporary problems may have more of a visual exponent that can be easily analysed. A documentary on monkeys and the Roman Empire provide various components. The former can provide real life footage while the latter cannot. The latter is a recreation with actors. The latter is a ploy while the former is genuine photography. The documentary on monkeys may have its agenda and problems. It may promote one sided issues but it is proscribing photography in the moment. One ought to enter the documentary with a secondary source or check other sources after.

Today there is less interest in reading about problems. People would rather view the problem on a big screen. Learning from television rather than from books. The truth of television especially of documentaries becomes the truth of the issue. This is but a falsehood. The directing cast is promising a problem. There may be some unbiased programs but those confronting terrible issues are enlightening through a point. Again whether their agenda is correct or not it is still an agenda. The rate of unbiased material is quite mute. A documentary on factory farming has a goal even if it is correct. A documentary on monkeys may be to educate to fix a problem. Why make a documentary unless there is something underlying the goal. It isn’t about nefarious deception or underhanded means but rather a goal-centred choice. Education is but an agenda driven ideal. The power therefore of the visual is the realistic picture. This is how it is. Subsumed by the photographical portrayal. This image is the problem. The power of the imagery facilitates growth and change.

There is a documentary about the meat industry. People have said that it rationed them to eat. Was this because they saw the horrors or maybe it was the criticism. An array of psychological impressionism that tortured the meat eater. Here is what happens when you eat meat. It is not only the point of view imposed upon the viewer but more so the extra components that seek to “educate” the public. Showing them gruesome images and overpacking with dramatic association. The goal of documentary is not to educate but to overwhelm. They are like a news outlet who provide the unbiased news with images and storylines. Here too the narration is prodded by photos and lecturing. The documentary is but a series of news centric points but at the heart are advocates on social media. The documentary can provide so much but its textbook like narration ought not to be taken seriously. Though even a textbook is biased in many ways. Concerning the revolutionary war an American and British textbook may give different details and omit crucial information. A documentary may be a viewer friendly set but it doesn’t exempt bias.

An interesting trend of documentary-like shows have surged on Netflix from Vikings, Marco Polo and Barbarians. These provide some truth, some source material but many a time insinuate falsities about the culture. These aren’t necessarily intended to take seriously but they embed truth in these shows. So Ragnar wasn’t real but other stuff about the culture is. The deception is that the plot may be wrong but the setting is correct. Whether or not Ragnar successfully raided west and became king of the Danes is debatable even outright wrong (though the real life inspriation may have) nevertheless the viewer rejects the storyline but accepts the surrounding bits. Ragnar may not be real but the viking culture is. They did sacrifice people and they did pillage. They were savages not the Christians. The issue with the visual is its prowess over the setting. The truths relayed to the public take in much of the surroundings even if part of it is questioned. It’s a reaction. A mock up of the past yet has some truth to it. This is the agenda driven farce. Employing a singular narrative veiled behind the plot line. The setting isn’t all true but is fluidly incorporated. 

The viewer knows this cinematic flavour is a recreation. There are no photographs nor videos of the event. They can only be transcribed from historians. From embellished historical facts. Nevertheless, it is a recreation. Yet such history is taken as a fact. When a group of men recreate the civil war for a YouTube video it is clumsy and ignored but when done in front of an audience it is taken seriously. This is what the battle looked like. This community in Jamestown is exactly how it looked nearly half a millennium ago. There is much truth but it can only be ascertained from notes or maybe even oral transmission. Yet the inability to fully see into the past disables the possibility of actualising the truth. What is presented is an aspiring equivalent. It may be the closest we have but it doesn’t make it the correct version. It makes it an admirable imitation. The visual in Jamestown may have its drama though the cinematic creation is evidently in the business of profit rather than non profit education. There is a difference between a historical society and a movie but then again non profits are not always as honest as they ought to be. The goal is to educate a goal a certain way. So again everything is to be taken a grain of salt. 

All is to be cross examined. Still this doesn’t take away from the visual power on the audience. How seeing becomes believing. How could it be wrong. Yet it is really the opposite. Reading is believing. Reading different versions helps document the whole truth. Where one stands on the legitimacy it is for sure at most eighty percent. The visual is an important piece of the puzzle. The visual compels adherence. It compels authentication. Yet this is far from the truth. Do not always trust what you see. Someone is always selling you something that is the name of the game.