Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    If there is no advantage to be gained from purposely fouling in the last few seconds then it won't occur.
    There is an advantage. You get a small chance to try to steal the inbounds pass. But that's a relatively rare occurrence so most of the time you'd just be stuck watching the leading team repeatedly inbounding the ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    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.
    That's true for a single inbounds pass. I'm arguing that a lot of games would end in like 10 boring inbounds passes by the team with the lead.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    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.
    I hear you, but that impact is rather minor. While it's tried more, it rarely changes the outcome. As someone else mentioned, taking a yellow to prevent a goal happens less frequently but when it does occur the advantage is often more substantial.

    I'm less concerned with the intentional though, than I am the impact a ref's decision has on the games.
    The risk of fouling out increases the variability based on how the game is ref'd. There are too many games (particularly college) where a post star seems to get the calls. Guys like Okafor are already better than the opponents. It seems to be too easy for them to get the other teams in foul trouble so that they end up going against bench players and now timid starters for most of the game.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Outlaw View Post
    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.
    This is what I was thinking. I hate when at the start of a game someone picks up two quick fouls and has to sit. So many calls by the refs seem arbitrary - big guys will bang all day long with no calls, then all of a sudden someone gets called for seemingly minor contact. And at the very start of the game, the players haven't had a chance to "feel out" how the game is being called. I'd prefer that players be allowed to stay in the game rather than having to sit because of a bad call. It totally changes the game when a star player goes to the bench early.

    I don't buy the argument that the games will turn into brutal slugfests. You've got the double bonus as motivation to not foul, as well as technical fouls which can be called. But if we're tossing out ideas just for fun, what about a "penalty box" idea in which a player has to leave the court after his fifth foul, but the team is allowed to send in a sub. He'll have to remain out for, say, one minute of game time. That could result in a "penalty killing" unit in which a team will play stall ball until the player can get back onto the court.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    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...
    Tonight's playoff game decided by a 4-2 overtime after a star player from each team fouled out is a pretty good example of the downside to disqualifying players for committing too many fouls.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    Tonight's playoff game decided by a 4-2 overtime after a star player from each team fouled out is a pretty good example of the downside to disqualifying players for committing too many fouls.
    It was the first time in over two years that Lebron fouled out of a game. I don't know how many games it's been since he last fouled out but it's in the triple digits. So I don't know if something is a serious concern when it's this rare (though that's a different story for the college game).

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    It was the first time in over two years that Lebron fouled out of a game. I don't know how many games it's been since he last fouled out but it's in the triple digits. So I don't know if something is a serious concern when it's this rare (though that's a different story for the college game).
    It's rare for James to foul out (and only happened because of bad calls on "fouls" 4 and 5.) It's not rare for players to foul out. It was Pierce's second DQ of the series. And it isn't just the foul-out that changes things: It's the threat of the foul-out. James sat on the bench for a few minutes near the end of regulation because he had five fouls. In college, this gets taken to some crazy extremes -- players sitting out 10 minutes of the first half with two fouls, for e.g. It isn't just the PT lost after a foul-out that affects the game; the PT lost in an effort to avoid a foul-out is a factor, too.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    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
    You just get different miracles. The miracle comeback is only a relative miracle. If you change the rule, you force the trailing team to "earn" the comeback (forcing them to play defense and create turnovers) rather than letting the trailing team foul and hope the leading team gives them a chance. You'll still have miracle comebacks. They'll just happen in different ways.

    I like the idea the "no foul out, triple bonus" concept: It allows teams to keep their best players on the floor and playing at full effort (which makes for more entertaining basketball) while still penalizing a team that fouls too much. And it penalizes the team that gets behind late.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    After wandering through the thread I have come to think that there are two things I would wish to accomplish with a rule change.

    1. Eliminate the permanent disqualification due to fouls.
    2. Discourage inordinate fouling.
    3. Keep games from dragging on interminably with a march to the foul line.

    Okay, three... three things.

    My proposal.

    1. After 7 fouls in a half by a team a defensive player called for a foul is sent to the penalty box for 1 set of possessions (One offensive possession by each team).

    2. The offensive team team if fouled gets the option of taking the ball out of bounds or shooting free throws.

    3. If offensive team takes the ball out of bounds and the defensive team fouls again on the same possession they lose a second player for that set of possessions up to a maximum of three players in the penalty box.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by camion View Post
    After wandering through the thread I have come to think that there are two things I would wish to accomplish with a rule change.

    1. Eliminate the permanent disqualification due to fouls.
    2. Discourage inordinate fouling.
    3. Keep games from dragging on interminably with a march to the foul line.

    Okay, three... three things.

    My proposal.

    1. After 7 fouls in a half by a team a defensive player called for a foul is sent to the penalty box for 1 set of possessions (One offensive possession by each team).

    2. The offensive team team if fouled gets the option of taking the ball out of bounds or shooting free throws.

    3. If offensive team takes the ball out of bounds and the defensive team fouls again on the same possession they lose a second player for that set of possessions up to a maximum of three players in the penalty box.
    The only problem I have with sitting a player in a penalty box is that in basketball, this will almost assuredly lead to an open look for the offensive team. While it's also a big advantage in hockey, I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of penalty possessions that lead to a basket in basketball would be at around 80%, especially with the 35 second shot clock (that's a lot of time to play 4 on 5). We want to discourage fouling, but losing a player for a possession after 7 team fouls (which happens basically every half for BOTH teams) will cause a number of ridiculously easy scoring opportunities.

    While I was the one who advocated for the offensive team having a choice to shoot free throws or take the ball out of bounds if they are trying to hold onto a lead, perhaps a simpler solution would make even more sense. What if the referees were able to grant a soccer-style "advantage" when the defense commits a foul? Fouls in the closing minutes of games often come as the offensive team is breaking the press set by the trailing defensive team. The fouls that are committed in this scenario are commonly little more than the defensive player lightly tugging on the trailing arm of the offensive player after the offensive player has already broken free from the defensive trap. Sometimes this doesn't even result in the offensive player breaking stride. As long as the offensive player maintains possession and is not put into a bad position by the touch foul, the referee can let play continue, allowing seconds to tick off the clock. The player committing the foul will then be booked at the next stoppage of play (just as a player earning a yellow card after committing a foul in soccer can still be booked even if advantage is granted). Honestly, I'd like to see this rule apply to transition opportunities, as well. The NBA has the "clear-path" technical foul, but it would be so much faster to just let play continue and the offense get an easy dunk or layup if the clear path foul has no substantial effect on the ballhandler's ability to get an easy bucket.

    I guess a concern would be that this would encourage really hard fouls that will definitely stop the clock. But if the referees enforce flagrant foul rules and award two shots and the ball to the offense, this would be discouraged, as well. This rule could go into effect during the final two minutes of the game.

    Honestly, I don't know. It seems that every possible solution has it's own set of problems, which is probably why no one has changed anything about the end of game rules, yet.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    If you want to simply eliminate ejections, without taking away the disincentive they provide, wouldn't the easiest way to do that be to simply make the ejection temporary? For every foul after the fourth foul, the player will be forced to sit for a minute (or two full posessions) before he can be subbed back in. Then, you can save the full ejection for something more rare -- let's say 8 fouls. That will prevent teams from having enforcers that just go out and rack up double-digit fouls, while also preventing the vast majority of accidental foul-outs. You could also scale this system to make each consecutive foul more severe: one minute for the 5th foul, two for the sixth, three four the seventh, and a full ejection for the eighth.


    Problems with this theory to be exposed in 3... 2... 1...

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    Tonight's playoff game decided by a 4-2 overtime after a star player from each team fouled out is a pretty good example of the downside to disqualifying players for committing too many fouls.
    I don't see that as a downside. If a player isn't good enough, or careful enough, to play defense without fouling, and this happens six times in a game, then he has hurt his team by allowing himself and them to be put in that position. Playing defense of course is a very important set of skills to develop, and doing it well requires focus and effort, as well as physical ability. If a guy can't bring all of that, and it results in him having fouls (correctly) assessed against him, then the team should suffer for it. That player is not as good as a player who brings the same skills to the table offensively but also plays well on the defensive end, and the results on the floor should reflect that difference.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    If you want to simply eliminate ejections, without taking away the disincentive they provide, wouldn't the easiest way to do that be to simply make the ejection temporary? For every foul after the fourth foul, the player will be forced to sit for a minute (or two full posessions) before he can be subbed back in. Then, you can save the full ejection for something more rare -- let's say 8 fouls. That will prevent teams from having enforcers that just go out and rack up double-digit fouls, while also preventing the vast majority of accidental foul-outs. You could also scale this system to make each consecutive foul more severe: one minute for the 5th foul, two for the sixth, three four the seventh, and a full ejection for the eighth.


    Problems with this theory to be exposed in 3... 2... 1...
    I'm sure someone will find the downside to this but at face value I like it. I think it still provides an adequate disincentive to foul and it would be interesting to hear coaches debate strategy, do they maybe still sit guys who pick up 2 quick ones in the first half but now they might go back in with a couple minutes left in the half? Or do they just let them go at it, knowing they may lose them for a minute or two in the second half but hopefully they can keep it under 8 fouls and stay on the floor?

    If there were a change to be made (which I'm not holding my breath for) and if I had a vote (which I definitely don't) I would vote for this one out of everything that has been thrown out there.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    What about only counting shooting fouls toward ejection?

    All other fouls still count as team fouls, but this way the player doesn't lose playing time because of a 50/50 call like a moving screen or off the ball fouls.

    This way the violater's team is still being punished by the other team getting in the bonus, but it keeps players on the floor without prolonging games.
    Last edited by tdrake51; 06-05-2012 at 01:13 PM.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    If you want to simply eliminate ejections, without taking away the disincentive they provide, wouldn't the easiest way to do that be to simply make the ejection temporary? For every foul after the fourth foul, the player will be forced to sit for a minute (or two full posessions) before he can be subbed back in.
    Two things I don't like about this solution:

    1) It violates my simplicity standard. Player X commits his fifth foul with 5:00 remaining, has to sit until 4:00. Player Y commits his fifth foul with 4:40 remaining, has to sit until 3:30 remaining. Player A on the opposing team commits his sixth with 4:10 remaining, has to sit until 3:10 remaining. Meanwhile, coaches, refs, scorekeepers have to keep all this straight, coaches have to try to manipulate lineups, you build up a backlog of players waiting to re-enter the game at a stoppage in play ... basically, there's high potential for messiness.

    2) More fundamentally: If the point of eliminating ejections is to keep players on the court, a solution that involves removing players from the court, even if only temporarily, seems flawed.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by tdrake51 View Post
    What about only counting shooting fouls toward ejection?

    All other fouls still count as team fouls, but this way the player doesn't lose playing time because of a 50/50 call like a moving screen or off the ball fouls.
    I like that idea, but I think it would be too hard to keep track of. Also, players can get hosed on bad shooting foul calls too. I've seen plenty of times where a guy stands there with his arms straight up and the offensive player jumps into him and gets the call...

    As far as the idea of "in the last few minutes the team with the ball who gets fouled can choose to take the ball out of bounds rather than shooting free throws," the NCAA tried this several years ago. They implemented this rule during the preseason just to try it out. It never stuck, I guess the coaches didn't like it. I thought it was a decent idea, if nothing else to speed things up.

  16. #56
    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 Jderf View Post
    If you want to simply eliminate ejections, without taking away the disincentive they provide, wouldn't the easiest way to do that be to simply make the ejection temporary?
    Well that would keep the "Ahhhh SeeeeeeeeeYa!" chant intact so it could be followed two minutes later by the new "Welcome Back!" chant. Preferably shouted while wearing Gabe Kaplan mustaches.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    Tonight's playoff game decided by a 4-2 overtime after a star player from each team fouled out is a pretty good example of the downside to disqualifying players for committing too many fouls.
    Well, that one is easy to fix. Each team gets an extra time out in OT, why not give every player who has not already DQ's an extra foul? That's fair because you're in extra time and there is little chance of a fouling binge to keep the game close.

    Of course, if you've used your 5 during regulation, you're still out. In my book, at least.

  18. #58
    I still think keep everything the same but give the coaches challenge flags. So many of the fouls called when shown on reply are not fouls. It is frustrating to see a player like Miles or Mason, get called for a "non-foul" early in the game. It changes the entire flow of the game from that point on. Allow coaches to challenge questionable calls (with a limit of course), set a time limit on how long the refs can review the call (30 seconds should be plenty of time), fit in one of the commercials during the review time. If the coach is correct in the challenge the call is reversed and play and clock pick up where the call was made. If he is wrong, take a time out away. I think it would add an interesting stategy to the game of when to challenge, and also may have the added benefit of reducing some of the "anticipation" fouls we see made by refs, when they think there might be a foul and blow the whistle.

    Love to hear others thoughts on this. I don't want the game to drag out, but limiting the time of review should help keep the game moving, plus give the TV an opportunity to fit in a quick commercial, or even better yet post some vital stats that we don't get from the announcers like total team fouls, etc...

    What do you guys thinks??

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Well that would keep the "Ahhhh SeeeeeeeeeYa!" chant intact so it could be followed two minutes later by the new "Welcome Back!" chant. Preferably shouted while wearing Gabe Kaplan mustaches.
    Could also lead to a "new" Crazies' cheer/s of: "Six fouls, no points." Then, "seven fouls, no points." And so on as the game continued into its 2nd or 3rd OT ;>) .
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boca Grande Florida
    A) Don't foul.

    B) Call the fouls, every time, consistantly. Let the best athletes in the world have space to show their talents. They will stop fouling if they have to sit often enough.

    C) Extend the size of the court 3 feet all the way around.

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
  •