Eliminate fouling out?

[OldPhiKap]

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.

Now, this is something which which I agree. Both for hoops and pigskin.

[hurleyfor3]

By simply allowing a 6th foul, the Big East immediately turned their games into slow, ugly wrestling matches.

You say that as if they weren't that way already.

I'd like to see the college game called a bit looser, or at least the ACC called a bit looser. I realize this is a minority opinion here. Also, get rid of the double bonus in the first half, and allow teams one or two fouls in overtime before FTs are shot, similar to the nba.

My opinion on the double bonus (in the second half) has changed over the time, and now I support it. The trailing team can score three points at a time while the leading team is generally limited to two, especially if they're getting fouled.

Wait, I just came up with this: leading team gets two FTs if leading by >3 after seventh team foul, otherwise one-and-one; trailing team always shoots one-and-one.

[75Crazie]

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.

I do not know why this doesn't get more attention. I think it is an abomination, in an otherwise sublime sport, that in most games it becomes a deliberate strategy of the trailing team at the end of a game to deliberately commit a violation of the rules in order to try to gain an advantage. I also cannot think of another sport where it is as true to nearly that extent.

[badgerbd]

I do not know why this doesn't get more attention. I think it is an abomination, in an otherwise sublime sport, that in most games it becomes a deliberate strategy of the trailing team at the end of a game to deliberately commit a violation of the rules in order to try to gain an advantage. I also cannot think of another sport where it is as true to nearly that extent.

Fouls play a bigger role in soccer, imo. Maybe less strategic impact, but they effect the outcomes more.

[Acymetric]

Fouls play a bigger role in soccer, imo. Maybe less strategic impact, but they effect the outcomes more.

But they aren't generally intentional to gain advantage (not counting an attempt to gain a mental edge through intimidation) in soccer the way they are in basketball.

[oldnavy]

Eh... NO. I like many of the posters, Hurley for 3 for example here don't like seeing players get cheapy and ticktacky fouls called. I have seen Duke players suffer from this as well as our opponents. I wish there was a way to wave a magic wand over the officials to make them perfect but that will never happen.

Maybe have a review of "questionable calls". Like the red flag in the NFL. Give a the coaches a couple of "red flags" to throw when a questionable call is made and let them go review it.

Of course this would slow down the game, (maybe use this time for some of the commericals we must endure), but if you place a time limit on the review to say 30 seconds (plenty of time to see the play from several angles) and let all 3 of the officals look at the "foul" to decide if in fact it was a foul. If it was then reverse the call and pick up from the point of the call (clock and all) if the foul was upheld, take a time out away...

Might work who knows... might help reduce the number of what I like to call the premeditated call. When the ref blows the whistle in anticipation of a foul that never happens... hate that worst of all!!!

[OldPhiKap]

Fouls play a bigger role in soccer, imo. Maybe less strategic impact, but they effect the outcomes more.

Hockey probably has the biggest and most often-seen influence.

And, sometimes the penalties are strategic. {bam} {boom} {Pow}

[mkline09]

With no one fouling out think how many more foul shots Tyler Hansbrough would have shot by drawing fouls on guys who had already fouled out?

[fgb]

[*]"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."

i would counter that the best players don't foul out; that in fact learning how to stay in the game while in foul trouble is part of becoming a great player.

[fgb]

i have always liked the idea of giving the team the option of taking the ball out of bounds after being fouled, in say the last two minutes.

i would probably consider strengthening this by not allowing the offending team to closely guard said inbound play. maybe give the team the ball at half court, not allow the defending team to guard in the back court, and give the team either the remaining of their back court time, or five seconds, whichever is greater (or simply not start the game clock until the ball crossed half court).

[fgb]

one other option would be to treat non-shooting defensive fouls in the last two minutes as a sort of semi-technical foul, in which the team fouled would be allowed to choose the shooter from the five players on the court.

[75Crazie]

i have always liked the idea of giving the team the option of taking the ball out of bounds after being fouled, in say the last two minutes.

i would probably consider strengthening this by not allowing the offending team to closely guard said inbound play. maybe give the team the ball at half court, not allow the defending team to guard in the back court, and give the team either the remaining of their back court time, or five seconds, whichever is greater (or simply not start the game clock until the ball crossed half court).

I also like this idea ... and not necessarily in the last two minutes. Why not have this option the whole game? I think it would tend to speed up the game a bit and reduce the affect of whistle-happy refs affecting the flow of a game.

[COYS]

But they aren't generally intentional to gain advantage (not counting an attempt to gain a mental edge through intimidation) in soccer the way they are in basketball.

There are many strategic fouls on soccer. Sometimes a yellow or even a red card is gladly sacrificed to prevent a good goal scorin opportunity. The good thing about soccer is that the defender really is sacrificing a lot if he gets a red card and forces his team to play a man down. On the other hand, the bad thing about soccer is that an entire game can hinge on a borderline penalty call/non-call because there is so little scoring. And even with the yellow card/red card system, it is still sometimes advantageous to commit obvious fouls and risk a red card, especially if your team is winning late and you are able to commit a "cynical" foul outside the penalty area to prevent a good chance on goal.

[Acymetric]

There are many strategic fouls on soccer. Sometimes a yellow or even a red card is gladly sacrificed to prevent a good goal scorin opportunity. The good thing about soccer is that the defender really is sacrificing a lot if he gets a red card and forces his team to play a man down. On the other hand, the bad thing about soccer is that an entire game can hinge on a borderline penalty call/non-call because there is so little scoring. And even with the yellow card/red card system, it is still sometimes advantageous to commit obvious fouls and risk a red card, especially if your team is winning late and you are able to commit a "cynical" foul outside the penalty area to prevent a good chance on goal.

But the basketball equivalent of that is fouling a shooter hard to ensure the ball doesn't go in (similar to fouling a player who is about ot get a good goal scoring opportunity in soccer). Fouling immediately upon the inbounds in basketball would be more like intentionall fouling a soccer player right in front of his own goal. It isn't rewarded in soccer the way it is in basketball.

[turnandburn55]

I do not know why this doesn't get more attention. I think it is an abomination, in an otherwise sublime sport, that in most games it becomes a deliberate strategy of the trailing team at the end of a game to deliberately commit a violation of the rules in order to try to gain an advantage. I also cannot think of another sport where it is as true to nearly that extent.

What about when a pitcher intentionally throws the ball to a place where the rules say he shouldn't four times in a row so that he can gain an advantage over the hitter?

[jimsumner]

College football DBs willingly give up a 15-yard pass interference penalty to avoid a touchdown.

Football teams willingly take five-yard delay-of-game-penalties to keep the clock moving.

Football teams have been known to kick off out of bounds to keep the ball away from a dangerous return guy.

All examples of taking a penalty for a perceived benefit.

[Wander]

College football DBs willingly give up a 15-yard pass interference penalty to avoid a touchdown.

Football teams willingly take five-yard delay-of-game-penalties to keep the clock moving.

Football teams have been known to kick off out of bounds to keep the ball away from a dangerous return guy.

Great point. Also the occasional intentional safety and delay of game to set up a less awkward angle for a field goal or better punt distance.

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.

This seems to be a popular thought here, but have you guys really thought through how slow this would make the end of games (which is arguably already one of basketball's bigger problems)? Duke is up on UNC by 1 with 20 seconds left, so Reggie Bullock intentionally fouls Quinn Cook. But since Duke can just win by running out the clock, Coach K elects to inbound the ball instead of taking free throws. Then UNC fouls again with 18 seconds. Repeat. Then with 17 seconds. Then 15. Then 13. And on...

[SCMatt33]

This seems to be a popular thought here, but have you guys really thought through how slow this would make the end of games (which is arguably already one of basketball's bigger problems)? Duke is up on UNC by 1 with 20 seconds left, so Reggie Bullock intentionally fouls Quinn Cook. But since Duke can just win by running out the clock, Coach K elects to inbound the ball instead of taking free throws. Then UNC fouls again with 18 seconds. Repeat. Then with 17 seconds. Then 15. Then 13. And on...

Presumably, you would only do this to avoid putting a bad shooter on the line. You keep trying until you get it to a satisfactory shooter. If you have to inbound the ball five to ten consecutive times, you really risk a steal at some point. I'm not really for changing the end of the game too much. Yeah, it gets frustrating when a team down 8-10 with 20 seconds left is still fouling, but I like a guy at the line with a 1 and 1, up two points, needing both to ice the game with 6 seconds left. That's exciting. I don't want to see that taken out of the game and you end up like football where a team can be up 1 with 1:30 left and just take a few knees to end it.

[Scorp4me]

This seems to be a popular thought here, but have you guys really thought through how slow this would make the end of games (which is arguably already one of basketball's bigger problems)? Duke is up on UNC by 1 with 20 seconds left, so Reggie Bullock intentionally fouls Quinn Cook. But since Duke can just win by running out the clock, Coach K elects to inbound the ball instead of taking free throws. Then UNC fouls again with 18 seconds. Repeat. Then with 17 seconds. Then 15. Then 13. And on...

I think that's kind of the point. If there is no advantage to be gained from purposely fouling in the last few seconds then it won't occur. Besides, I would think it's usually much quicker to inbound the ball with the clock starting again, than take two free throws with the clock stopped. The end of games needs to be changed, giving teams the option advocated seems a great solution.

[hurleyfor3]

I'll take the free throws over the possibility of having to burn a timeout if I can't get the ball inbounds, or worse, having the pass stolen.