公平之哨

There’s been a lot of talk during this post-season， about a variety of different fouling issues. It’s a common topic， starting when players are children， and following the game through to the NBA. And why wouldn’t it be? Anyone who tells you that basketball isn’t a contact sport is a liar. Any game that involves ten players in a contained space trying to keep the ball out of each others’ hands is always going to involve a certain amount of physicality. And given that， in contrast to football and hockey， these athletes aren’t wearing any protective gear， the contact needs to be strictly regulated - hence， the foul calls.

本賽季季后賽，一系列不同的犯規問題引發了不小的討論。這是一個很常見的話題，球員們從孩子時期就開始討論了，一直會延續到他們進入NBA。為什么不呢？如果有人告訴你，籃球不是一項有身體接觸的運動，那他一定是騙子。任何在有限空間里有十個球員在場，同時雙方的目標都是盡量組織對方把球投出去，這必定會產生一定數量的身體接觸。而且，相比美式橄欖球和冰球，籃球運動員沒有裝備任何護具，所以身體接觸贏定被嚴格限制——因此有了犯規這一說。

Some people complain that there are too many foul calls， some that there aren’t enough. Partisan spectators gripe about their teams getting called and the officials’justifications. It’s touchy for coaches， who require their players to be aggressive， but need to be concerned for said players’ well-being.

有人抱怨說，比賽里犯規吹得實在太多，也有人說裁判吹的還不夠。球隊的忠實擁躉總會因為自己喜歡的球隊被吹犯規而惱怒，從而對裁判的執法表示不爽。對于教練來說，這是比較敏感的問題。他們需要自己的球員保持侵略性，但又要考慮球員的狀態。

Going back to elementary school-age kids who are just learning the sport， trying to explain the difference between a true foul and contact or， further， a good foul and a bad foul， is not a pleasant experience.

回去跟小學階段正在慢慢學習這項運動的孩子們，解釋一個真正的犯規和一次身體接觸，或者說，一個好犯規和爛犯規的卻別，實在不是什么有意思的工作。

Fouling is a complicated topic， and I don’t want to get into a technical analysis of what a foul is and when one should be called， but rather the effect that fouling has on the game as a whole.

犯規是個很復雜的問題，我也不想陷入純技術性的討論，告訴你犯規到底是什么，什么時候該吹犯規。我只想從犯規給比賽帶來的影響這個整體來談一談。

Most of my friends and family are very committed hockey fans， and when I ask them why they prefer televised hockey to televised basketball， a recurring answer has to do with the perceived violence.

我的大部分朋友和家人都忠實的冰球迷，當我問他們，為什么更喜歡在電視上看冰球而不是籃球時，暴力是反復被提及到的答案。

“In hockey，” they say， “if they hit， it’s okay， and everyone keeps going. In basketball， they make contact， but pretend they didn’t.”

“在冰球中，”他們說，“撞上是沒問題的，大家會繼續比賽。在籃球中，他們會身體接觸，但每個人都裝作沒有。”

It’s an accountability issue， apparently， and I cannot explain how much I agree with that. How many times have we watched as a player clearly hacks an opponent to bits， and then gripes at the call? How frustrating is that?

顯然，這可以說明一些問題，我也沒法告訴你我有多同樣這種說法。有多少次，我們看著一名球員明明打到了對手，但是卻抱怨裁判的吹罰？這種情況到底讓人感到多不爽？

On the flip side， during round two， Blake Griffin slammed someone to the ground， stood up， picked the other player up， and apologized for the foul.

相反的，在季后賽第二輪里，布雷克·格里芬把一個球員撞到在地，他站起來，拉起對方，然后為這個犯規向對方道歉。

Now， I’m not a huge Griffin fan， (I may very well be the only person in the world who isn’t) but that was fantastic. That was sportsmanship， and as a coach I believe that’s something to be prized in a player. When players take responsibility for their fouls it makes a good impression on coaches and fans， and makes the game more fun.

我不是格里芬的超級球迷(我有可能是世界上唯一不是他球迷的人)，但這個行為非常棒。這就是職業道德，作為教練，我覺得這是球員值得表揚的行為。當球員對自己的犯規負起責任時，這會給教練和球迷留下很好的印象，會讓比賽變得更有趣。

Isn’t it much more impressive to watch a game based on pure basketball and not petty rivalries? Sure， the snarking and sniping is entertaining at times， but a game played on the merits of the sport is always more appreciated. Watch Twitter – when teams play well， with an organized offence and an effective defence， people talk about it. When the Spurs ran roughshod over the Thunder last week， people couldn’t stop thanking them for a good， enjoyable game. When the Clippers got hit with five technical fouls in a game against the Spurs， there wasn’t much commentary.

難道看一場純粹的籃球比賽不比各種小動作更有意思嗎？當然，有時候針鋒相對也很有娛樂性，但打出運動本質的比賽還是更受人喜歡的。看看推特就知道，當球隊打得好時，當他們打出有組織的進攻和有效的防守，就會引起人們的談論。當馬刺上周暴虐雷霆時，球迷們都在感謝他們送上了一場好看的比賽。當快船在和馬刺的一場比賽里吃到五次技術犯規時，可沒這么多評論。

Another point that’s often made is the sheer volume of fouls called. As mentioned above， there are safety issues involved， and we rely on officials to keep control of the game– but it gets to a point sometimes that a foul is called on every possession. It interrupts the flow of the game， and almost cheapens the effort of the players， giving them an out.

另一個經常被提到的問題就是吹罰犯規的數量。就像上面提過的，比賽中會涉及到球員人身安全，所以我們依賴裁判去控制比賽。但有時候就會出現每一次進攻都會吹罰犯規的情況。這會打斷比賽的流暢，也會讓球員的努力變得廉價，給他們提供便利。

To add to this， the athletes in the NBA are meant to be the best of the best. They are marketed as such， are paid to be such， and yet they don’t seem to be able to take a little contact. Most fouls that are called under the basket， while they are technically illegal， really shouldn’t affect anything if these players are as strong and ‘superhuman’ as they are made out to be. There’s a difference between shoving someone to the ground， and brushing a hand against the shooter’s arm.

此外，NBA球員都是極品中的極品。他們就是這樣被宣傳的，他們賺了那么多錢，但他們看起來卻一點身體接觸都不能承受。很多籃下犯規，從規則上講的確是，但假如球員真的像被宣傳的那樣強壯和“超人類”，那些犯規根本不會造成什么影響。在把一個推倒在地和碰到球員的投籃手之間是有區別的。

Perhaps， instead of the onus being on the officials to penalize the defence， coaches should focus on training their players to play in spite of contact. In a drill that requires parental supervision， I stand under the basket with a foam stick and ‘foul’ my players， and they are frequently able to get the and-one. And these are twelve year olds. Imagine how effective they’ll be when they’re in their twenties.

也許，不該指責裁判的判罰對防守產生不好的影響，教練應該集中精神，訓練自己的球員能夠在身體接觸的情況下繼續打球。在一場有家長監督的比賽里，我站在籃下，手拿一個塑料棍子，對我的球員“犯規”，他們總能得到2+1的機會。這還只是12歲的孩子，想象一下，當他們20歲的時候，會變得多有效率。

This trend of the whistle-happy official doesn’t only affect the offence. Defensive players are punished for their efforts， which is extremely unfortunate， as it’s more difficult in general to develop a strong defence without adding the threat of fouling out simply for doing one’s job. Perhaps drawing the foul purposely should be more often answered by issuing an offensive foul， simply for disrespect of the sport.

這種頻繁的吹罰影響的不僅是進攻。防守球員會因為他的努力受到懲罰，這是非常不幸的。你很難在還得考慮僅僅因為自己努力就面臨著被罰出去風險的同時，還能在總體上提高自己的防守。也許有意思地制造防守犯規更多地被吹罰為進攻犯規(會改善這個情況)，僅僅因為他們不尊重這項運動。

The issues with fouling don’t only come from the players and officials. Coaches are also guilty of taking advantage of the system. There was an article posted to this site recently by Steve Finamore， talking about whether to foul or defend in the last minutes of a close game， which covers the topic quite nicely. What I would like to comment on is the strategy demonstrated in the Western Conference Finals， nicknamed， ②“Hack-A-Splitter”， in which the Spurs player Tiago Splitter is fouled repeatedly. He has a low shooting percentage from the line， and so if the Thunder can rebound from his miss， they regain possession of the ball with little time off the clock and a lower chance of the Spurs scoring.

犯規的問題不僅來自球員和裁判，教練利用規則漏洞也是有錯的。這個網站最近由Steve Finamore貼出了一篇文章，文章里講到了在比賽接近的比賽最后時刻到底該犯規還是防守，這個很好地契合了最近的主題。我想評論的是在西部決賽里出現的一種戰術，所謂的“砍斯普利特”戰術，馬刺的蒂亞戈·斯普利特不停地被犯規。他的罰球命中率很低，所以說，如果雷霆能在他罰丟后搶到籃板，他們就能在比賽時間不多時再得到進攻機會，而馬刺的得分機會則不多。

What these types of plays indicate is the weakness of the team’s defence， rather than strategic brilliance. If a coach truly trusted their team， they would allow them to play the game straight， without resorting to dirty tactics. We’re back to the notion of accountability， this time on the part of the coach， and truly， a coach is more respected on the basis of their sportsmanship than the talent of their team. A successful coach will focus on developing their team’s strengths， rather than exploiting their opponents’ weaknesses.

這種戰術說明了一支球隊防守的弱點，而不是球隊有多高明。如果一個教練真心相信他的球隊，他們會讓球隊好好打比賽，而不是用這種骯臟的伎倆。我們又回到了關于責任的問題上。這一次在教練的問題上，說真的，一個教練會因為他的職業道德會不是球隊的天賦更受尊重。成功的教練會重點提高自己球隊的強項，而不是發掘對方的弱點。

This is all pretty well reserved to ‘regular’fouls， but there has certainly been some discussion of flagrant fouls and technical fouls. In the post-season it’s to be expected that everyone’s intensity would run a fair bit higher， and tempers would flare， which explains the upswing at this time of year in ‘extreme fouling’. The issue， again， is how this affects the game.

這說的都是普通犯規，當然還有惡意犯規和技術犯規的討論。季后賽，可以想象每個人的精神都會更緊張，球場氣氛更熱烈，所以每年這個時候都會出現一些“特別犯規”。問題還在于，這樣犯規會怎樣影響比賽。

Technical fouls， for the most part， are justified， and are an excellent tool for the officials to keep control of the game. In quite a few circumstances， a point needs to be made， and many coaches and players will happily take their technical for speaking out about some perceived injustice. The only major issue with the technical is the double-technical， which arises when two players get tangled. If there’s a situation when both players are at fault， then shouldn’t something more effective be done to avoid the situation happening again? Officials should give a free throw to each team， at least， rather than resetting the whole play， or choose not to make the call and let everyone play on.

技術犯規，絕大多數都是合理的，這也是裁判控制比賽的非常好的工具。在一些場合中，有時候必須發出自己的看法，很多教練和球員很樂意利用技術犯規的機會，表達自己對判罰不公的不滿。技術犯規唯一一個大問題，就是雙重技術犯規，這會出現在兩名球員糾纏在一起時。如果兩名球員都有錯，難道不應該有一些更有效的方法阻止類似情況再次出現嗎？至少裁判應該給每支球隊一次罰球機會，而不是重新開始一次進攻，也不是選擇不去吹罰，讓所有人繼續比賽。

The flagrant fouls are a much more contentious issue， and here， I don’t want to attack whether or not they should be called， but rather， what should happen when one is called. Players like Metta World Peace， who foul severely and frequently， are a danger to other participants in the game. As the consequences of sports injuries are becoming better known， is it really justifiable to continue to allow serious fouling without an equally serious punishment?

惡意犯規是更有爭議的話題，在這里，我不想爭論這種犯規是否應該被吹罰，我更想說的是，當一名球員被吹罰惡意犯規時該出現什么情況。像慈世平這樣經常犯規，并且犯規兇狠的球員，他對其他參與比賽的球員是種威脅。在運動受傷的后果越來越被大眾了解時，這種嚴重的犯規卻沒有相應嚴重處罰的情況真的是合理的嗎？

True， World Peace was suspended for seven games following his flagrant foul on James Harden， but in the case of Udonis Haslem and Ronny Turiaf during the Heat/ Pacers series， neither were ejected from the game. They were both allowed to finish a progressively more physical game， at the increasing risk of other players， until the NBA reviewed the calls and suspended them.

沒錯，慈世平在他那次對哈登的犯規后被禁賽了七場，但是在熱火和步行者的系列賽里，哈斯勒姆和圖里亞夫都被沒有被驅逐出場。他們都被允許在一場對抗過度、對其他球員危險性增高的比賽里繼續打下去，直到聯盟重新審查了吹罰，并且對他們實施了禁賽。

The spirit of the foul call is to protect players and keep the game fair; how is this accomplishing either goal? Instead， is ejecting players like DeMar DeRozan (of the Toronto Raptors) for throwing the basketball in frustration meant to keep control of the game?

吹罰犯規的意義在于保護球員，讓比賽公平。這種情況怎么會滿足這兩個目標？相反的，驅逐像德馬爾·德羅贊(來自猛龍)這種僅僅因為沮喪而扔球的球員能控制住比賽嗎？

So， what is the final decision? Are there too many foul calls， or too few? The solution is evidently as complex as the problem， but maybe it stems from the philosophy of the foul call， and not the application. If officials have as their priority the safety of the players and the control of the game， and if they follow the spirit of the foul call rather than the letter， it would most likely make the sport more exciting and impressive.

所以說，最后的意見是什么？到底犯規吹得太多還是太少？解決的方法和問題本身一樣既明確又復雜，也許這源于犯規吹罰哲學，而不是其適用。如果裁判把保護球員和控制比賽放在首位，如果他們遵循犯規吹罰的本質而不是條文，這就很可能讓比賽變得更刺激，更令人記憶深刻。

And isn’t that excitement why we’re watching anyway?

這不正是我們看比賽的原因嗎？f