Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60
  1. #1

    Eliminate fouling out?

    Latest installment in ESPN's "Change the Game" blog, in which Eamonn Brennan argues in favor of disqualifying disqualifications.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...isqualify-this

    Among the key set-up points:

    • "Let's agree to table any and all SOTG (Sanctity of the Game) arguments."
    • "In 1990, the Big East itself let its foul-out freak flag fly."
    • "And yet, 22 years later, nothing has changed. Every year we are treated to -- or maybe the phrase is bludgeoned by -- a score of big-time games either outright ruined or at least negatively affected by foul-outs."
    • "Every year, basketball remains the only major American sport in which players can be totally disqualified from the game for the accrual of minor penalties. This is profoundly dumb."
    • "As fans, we want to see the best collegiate basketball players make great plays in important moments. We want them to be allowed by the game and its officials to do so. We want the refs as out of the way as possible. It's just better basketball."
    • "That doesn't mean we should give individual players a free pass to hack at will. That's the last thing we should want. Instead, we should devise a solution that urges players to play good, non-hacky defense."
    • "The NCAA's member schools should finish the work the Big East started in 1990."

    For Brennan's several proposed solutions, you'll want to read the article.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Once again, Seth Greenberg just misses.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Once again, Seth Greenberg just misses.
    Good line. Maybe bullet-point 6 is Seth-inspired.

  4. #4
    Maybe TT would play with less restraint...er nevermind

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh

    Heres a thought...

    How about DONT FOUL!?!?
    The proposal awards shots and the ball for for fouls over a certain limit... not sure what that solves.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    • "That doesn't mean we should give individual players a free pass to hack at will. That's the last thing we should want. Instead, we should devise a solution that urges players to play good, non-hacky defense."
    Except for that one guy that coaches will inevitably have on their teams with the soul purpose of being a goon, thus turning basketball into hockey without skates.

    Edit..I can see the stat line now... Jim Giganthor, 0 points, 5 rebounds, 0 assists, 0 turnovers, 12 fouls, 20 minutes
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    [*]"In 1990, the Big East itself let its foul-out freak flag fly."[*]"And yet, 22 years later, nothing has changed. Every year we are treated to -- or maybe the phrase is bludgeoned by -- a score of big-time games either outright ruined or at least negatively affected by foul-outs."
    Might I suggest this was because it did not work in practice? I'd also contest that the Big East was the "marquee hoops conference" at that time, given they won zero championships between '86 and '99, but perhaps that's just me.

    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    As fans, we want to see the best collegiate basketball players make great plays in important moments. We want them to be allowed by the game and its officials to do so. We want the refs as out of the way as possible. It's just better basketball
    And might I further suggest that part of being one of "the best collegiate basketball players" is the ability to avoid foul trouble and/or to create fould trouble for the opponent?

    Also, he seems to claiming that fouling-out leads to over-officiating. I think he has the connection backwards - over officiating may lead to foulin-out, but I doubt causation flows the other way. Officials aren't going to be more likely to call fouls because it occasionally results in someone sitting; if anything, it seems to me the refs usually swallow the whistle once a player picks up their fourth (or if they keep playing with their second in the first half).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Other Changes?

    I don't know about eliminating DQs, but I would eliminate hack-a-Shaq. Simply allow a team, once a player has been on the receiving end of five fouls (or seven or ten), to have the option of letting other players take the FTs.

    I would also try to bring games to a more orderly close, instead of having the last 60 seconds take 20 minutes. Once a team has incurred three fouls in a minute (or two minutes), the fouled team gets the ball after the FTs.

    sage

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    By simply allowing a 6th foul, the Big East immediately turned their games into slow, ugly wrestling matches. If anything, the conference declined (the BE was a bugger monster in the early 80s with Gt, Cuse, and SJU, peaking in 85). The reputation it earned was for overly physical, slow basketball. Eliminating disqualifications would only amplify that effect.

    A better solution, if one feels the need to radically change the rules and speed up play, would be to eliminate free throws. On shooting fouls award the basket. On non-shooting fouls award possession. On ALL fouls also put the offending player in a hockey-style penalty box for 1 to 2 minutes of game time and let the game go 5 on 4. That would be a sufficient disadvantage to discourage most fouls, and would eliminate the stoppage of play for a minute or more to shoot free throws.

    FWIW, I see no reason to alter the current number of fouls or the free throw system. But, if one wants to fiddle with a good game for the sake of fiddling, there's my humble suggestion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    I'm really leery of his proposal to essentially create a "triple bonus" after x number of team fouls. A team I'm the triple bonus who is leading will essentially clinch the game with 1-3 minutes left depending o how big that lead is. Team can no longer foul to stop the clock and get the ball back. Also factor in that team fouls from the second half carry over to OT and you'd really change things.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    I'm really leery of his proposal to essentially create a "triple bonus" after x number of team fouls. A team I'm the triple bonus who is leading will essentially clinch the game with 1-3 minutes left depending o how big that lead is. Team can no longer foul to stop the clock and get the ball back. Also factor in that team fouls from the second half carry over to OT and you'd really change things.
    That is an intentional consequence, the argument is that fouling to get back into the game is not a desirable ending to a game.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    I don't think it is. You get rid of teams hanging on when theyre Dow 4 possessions with 30 seconds left, but you might also eliminate some of the best comebacks in college history. It's hard to get box scores by half for old games, but it's possible that the miracles minute doesn't happen with this rule. It can come into play in close games too. The Laettner shot might not have happened. It was OT and depending on how many fouls each team had, the Mashburn and one or the Laettner free throws that followed could have allowed one of the teams to just about run out the clock with only a one point lead. It even takes away aggressively going for a steal for fear of fouling. Too many great endings are put at risk by this rule

  13. #13
    Terrible idea. I think that perhaps eliminating the bonus could be a good idea, though. It would lessen the amount of control that refs have over the flow of the game, and would also eliminate those tiresome endgames riddled with intentional fouling.

    I'd also be in favor of shortening the shot clock in the last several minutes of games, solely for the reason that it would be fun.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Interesting topic for the off season, and props to Gumbs for the thread. I have always had mixed feelings about players fouling out. Especially given how college ref's are less than great at what they do. I do see the point also about no other sport kicking players out of the game for fouls, errors, red flags, penalties, etc. I sort of like the penalty box idea for committing a 5th and beyond foul, but no way the 5 on 4 thing works for hoops. It is far easier to score in hoops than in hockey, so not a good dynamic there. If basketball has a 2 minute penalty box, a sub would have to come in to keep it 5 on 5.

    I really don't think eliminating fouling out would have a negative impact if handled correctly. I don't think it would lead to a hackfest or goons, etc. It would change the play in 1st halves for the better as no one would have to sit out due to foul trouble.

    I kind of like the 3 to make 2 for fouls 5 & 6, and anything beyond that becomes 3 to make 2 plus the ball. That would be stiff enough punishment to deter players from simply fouling without regard.

    Looking forward to hearing possible alternate solutions from others. Is there a way to make the game better by eliminating fouling out?

  15. #15
    I don't think there is another sport where fouling is such an integral part of the game. In no other game do players foul on purpose for strategic reasons. Mason would have been fouled every single time he touched the ball with no fouling out.

  16. #16
    Wouldn't be bad to move to 6 fouls for a foul out. It does stink that a kid can get two quick cheapies (with one or even both being bad calls) and he's got to sit for the final 15-17 minutes of the half.

    I thought the CBA had a decent solution. No foul outs but after the 'foul out' foul, you'd award the team a technical like free throw in addition to what happened on the play.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Worst. Idea. EVER.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Worst. Idea. EVER.
    OPK is right. Eliminate fouling out and you eliminate "AHHHHHH, SEEEE YA!"

    Eamonn Brennan must need some funds for his credit card bill. Ridiculous.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by 1999ballboy View Post
    Terrible idea. I think that perhaps eliminating the bonus could be a good idea, though. It would lessen the amount of control that refs have over the flow of the game, and would also eliminate those tiresome endgames riddled with intentional fouling.

    I'd also be in favor of shortening the shot clock in the last several minutes of games, solely for the reason that it would be fun.
    I've thought for a while that teams should have more choice when they are on the receiving end of fouls and are in the bonus. There are MANY situations in which the team that is leading would rather have the ball than score more points. Also, a team that is down three and has the last shot should have the option to take the ball out of bounds if fouled instead of being forced to take two free throws as the result of a foul. But I like disqualification. Actually, I think the NFL should adopt a yellow card/red card style for personal fouls so that more players are DQed for accumulating blatantly dangerous fouls.

  20. #20
    I almost never agree with the proposed changes to the game that have been flying around lately -- and, indeed, almost never even understand what problem they're supposed to solve, or what the principle behind the change is supposed to be, as I think I've expressed w/r/t the elimination of "flopping" and various discussions around charge-taking.

    This one, however, involves an easily-identifiable problem (though, obviously not one everyone must agree is a problem) and a solution (no more foul-outs) that, on the surface at least, doesn't suggest or create a principle that is inconsistent with other aspects of the game. So, though my general attitude is that there's no reason to mess around with the rules -- I like the game just fine -- this one has some potential. It's all about implementation, of course -- I don't think anybody would be happy if the result was a significant increase in fouls committed.

    If foul-outs were eliminated, there are three basic principles that I think should guide implementation:

    1) The changes/new rules should be as simple, elegant, and consistent as possible. Things like penalizing fouls differently if they occur in the last minute, creating a hockey-style "power play," or shortening the shot clock at the end of the game, fail this test for me. (No disrespect intended to the posters who suggested them; reading such ideas has been fun, even when I don't agree with them.

    2) The changes should penalize fouling enough to prevent hackfests. I share davekay1971's unpleasant memories of the Big East in the 6 foul era, if not his proposed fiddling.

    3) The changes shouldn't penalize fouling too much. Fouls are inevitably going to occur; if something relatively minor like an illegal hand-check results in a 2 minute power play, that's an excessive penalty that risks turning the entire game into a contest to see who can foul least.

    My gut reaction is that 3-to-make-2 probably isn't a sufficiently severe consequence, and power plays and the automatic awarding of baskets are probably too severe. Solutions that involve the fouled team retaining possession of the ball in addition to getting free throw(s) would pretty much eliminate the ability to foul to get the ball back in late-game comeback situations ... I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. Thinking about it does, however, remind me of a slightly-related pet peeve: The intentional foul by the team leading in the closing seconds, in order to prevent the trailing team from shooting a three-pointer. It shouldn't bother me as much as it does (I don't think I can come up with a rationale for that being inappropriate that doesn't also apply to the trailing team fouling to get the ball back.) And yet, it always strikes me as unsporting.

Similar Threads

  1. Fouling On The Breakaway
    By Turtleboy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-03-2007, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •