Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Yadkinville NC
    On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.
    Last edited by Jumbo; 03-24-2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason: Put the foul stuff in here

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilJay View Post
    On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.


    I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I actually agree with Vitale ... to a point. Five fouls is not enough. When you pick up two fouls, which really isn't a big deal, you're in foul trouble. Everyone thinks that the ratio is equivalent to the NBA (5 fouls per 40 minutes, 6 per 48). It's not. You're really allowed four fouls in 40 minutes (one per 10) vs. 5 in 48 (one per 9.6). There are way too many stars fouling out of way too many Tournament games. Keep in mind that these kids are allowed five fouls in high school, too -- playing 32-minute games. I would push for a combination of the Vitale Rule and the NBA rule. Your fifth foul counts as a technical, and you foul out on the sixth. Yeah, it would be a big change. But I think it would help the game. Thoughts?
    Last edited by Jumbo; 03-24-2008 at 12:48 PM.

  3. #3

    Time to consider six fouls instead of five?

    Apologies if this has been previously posted but did anyone hear D. Patrick talking about Vitale's comment that it may be time to consider increasing the college fouls to six? The big man's game is becoming hampered by the five, as the game has become faster.
    Any thoughts? I think it's a good idea but I suspect many do not. The second part of Vitale's argument was no fouling out, instead two shots and the ball, which sounds much more difficult to argue.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley

    Bad idea, and bad idea

    I think 5 fouls is perfect. It requires smart play and smart coaching, with consequences for bad judgement. As for the idea of never fouling out, that's an even worse idea. There is no jeopardy in it, so you can leave your best players in the whole game. The last 2 minutes of any game will be even more of a foul fest than they already are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    It's actually being discussed in another thread. I'll merge the two.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I think 5 fouls is perfect. It requires smart play and smart coaching, with consequences for bad judgement. As for the idea of never fouling out, that's an even worse idea. There is no jeopardy in it, so you can leave your best players in the whole game. The last 2 minutes of any game will be even more of a foul fest than they already are.
    But, do you agree that the 6 are ok for the pro game? Is it because of the game being longer? I just feel big men are more often penalized that faster, smaller players and not just because of the overall nature of the game. They are slower moving targets.
    I agree that the never fouling out is lame.

  7. #7
    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 weezie View Post
    But, do you agree that the 6 are ok for the pro game? Is it because of the game being longer? I just feel big men are more often penalized that faster, smaller players and not just because of the overall nature of the game. They are slower moving targets.
    I agree that the never fouling out is lame.
    I think that if they actually called all the fouls that are committed, then 6 would be sufficient. I think they give them one or 2 extras anyways.
    But I don't watch enough pro games to make a fair judgement, it's just not a style of basketball that I enjoy.

  8. #8

    He's wrong - mostly

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilJay View Post
    He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out".
    In soccer you can get tossed for two yellow cars or one red, and yellow cards can be issued for repeated violations of the rules. Often, more skilled teams create probems for the opposition by getting them in "card trouble" as opposed to foul trouble. Similarly, in hockey and lacrosse there are power plays where players are forced to temporarily sit out so to say removing players for fouls only occurs in basketball is incorrect. Sounds like Dick was just bummed to see Hibbert, a great college player, out of the game.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    I think Vitale's idea of 2-shots and the ball for all fouls after 5 is a terrible one. It would really encourage thuggish play once a guy got to 5 fouls. Unless you were going to add some additional penalty for an intentional foul after a guy already has 5 (4 shots plus the ball?) then you are only saying "foul as hard as you want, it does not matter" which is really dangerous.

    I also think that foul trouble is part of the tradition of basketball. It has always been a part of the game and it matters in strategy. Think about how often you see a team go to a specific play to take advantage of a guy who has 2 fouls already and you are trying to get a third or when a guy has 4 fouls and he cannot try to block shots. This is part of basketball strategy and I would hate to eliminate it from games.

    That said, 5 fouls may be too few. It is easy to get in foul trouble very quickly and it is somewhat unfair for a great player to be limited so much because of one or two small plays.

    So, I heartily endorse Jumbo's proposal of 2-shots plus the ball for a 5th foul and then elimination from the game for the 6th. I think this still values fouls a great deal but allows kids a little more leeway and especially allows kids to stay in the game in the first half with 2 fouls.

    --Jason "I know, my agreement with Jumbo is shocking... NOT!" Evans

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post



    I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I actually agree with Vitale ... to a point. Five fouls is not enough. When you pick up two fouls, which really isn't a big deal, you're in foul trouble. Everyone thinks that the ratio is equivalent to the NBA (5 fouls per 40 minutes, 6 per 48). It's not. You're really allowed four fouls in 40 minutes (one per 10) vs. 5 in 48 (one per 9.6). There are way too many stars fouling out of way too many Tournament games. Keep in mind that these kids are allowed five fouls in high school, too -- playing 32-minute games. I would push for a combination of the Vitale Rule and the NBA rule. Your fifth foul counts as a technical, and you foul out on the sixth. Yeah, it would be a big change. But I think it would help the game. Thoughts?
    Agreed.

    Also, you play less games - so every game matters a lot more.

    And common opinion would show (all though maybe biased) that college players play a little harder.

    Its common knowledge that certain refs call things tighter then others - so an extra foul at least would leave more room for error.

    I would have thought they would have given 6 fouls to players instead of moving the 3 point line back.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX

    Ummm.... I dunno

    Seems like the system could be gamed a bit. I'm all for adding a 6th foul, but making the 5th a technical really screws with the ability to foul at the end of games and put opponents on the line - a long time part of basketball no matter how tedious it can become. Did any our guys pick up their 5th in the last minute of the gone in 60 seconds game? I can't remember, but if they had, we lose.

    It creates a situation where it would be better for your team when they are behind in end game situations if it was your 6th foul rather than your 5th so at least they get the ball back.

    I guess it could work, except in the last 2 minutes or something, but now were working a little too hard, right?

    I don't mind bumping it to 6, but getting too quirky with it will create some new, likely unwelcome, dynamics.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Six fouls

    About 20 years ago, the Big East adopted a 6-foul rule for conference games. The rule lasted no more than a season or two. I was a Georgetown season ticket holder at the time, and my impression was that the style of play, particularly the post play, became more physical-- and the Big East was certainly not considered to be a soft league back then.

    There have been comments on this board recently about whether certain teams in the ACC, including a couple of former Big East teams, are playing a rougher style to the detriment of teams with more skill players. I wonder whether we would see more of that type of play, if the foul limit is increased from 5.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    I've always thought they should at least give each player an extra foul to work with in overtime.

  14. #14
    If you have to change things, I'd prefer three fouls per half and maybe have one or up to two carryovers. And no one and one - just two shots.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Parts Unknown

    get rid of "fouling out"?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilJay View Post
    On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.
    Please, why evern bother calling fouls then? You break the rules you have to pay the price. Sitting on the bench the rest of the game is the price. having to limit playing time is the price.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Calipari Hell
    While we're making wild suggestions, what about not counting the foul against the defender when the fouled offensive player makes the field goal? If the whistle blows and the shot goes in, the offense still gets the points and the one free throw, but the defense obviously didn't gain enough of an advantage to prevent the FG. So why count the foul? The offensive team would get a free throw because there was enough contact to force a stoppage, but not enough to warrant a foul.

    If the FG attempt misses, the foul goes into the book and the offensive player gets two shots.

    It'll never happen, but it would allow post players in particular to keep playing strong defense with less fear of being booted.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, DE & Durham, NC
    Five fouls in 40 minutes is one every 8 minutes. 6 fouls in 48 minutes (NBA) is one foul every 8 minutes. So there seems to be some symmetry between the two sets of rules. I think college basketball is becoming too rough as it is. There is more of a premium on athleticism than skill. Permitting additional fouls will not cut down on the physical play, and will not encourage skill over athleticism. JMO. Do we really want Deron Washington to have an extra chance to whack one of our guys?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Six fouls

    I posted this on another thread this morning:


    About 20 years ago, the Big East adopted a 6-foul rule for conference games. The rule lasted no more than a season or two. I was a Georgetown season ticket holder at the time, and my impression was that the style of play, particularly the post play, became more physical-- and the Big East was certainly not considered to be a soft league back then.

    There have been comments on this board recently about whether certain teams in the ACC, including a couple of former Big East teams, are playing a rougher style to the detriment of teams with more skill players. I wonder whether we would see more of that type of play, if the foul limit is increased from 5.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Dick Vitale can get kind of emotional, if you haven't noticed, and he probably was just upset that Roy Hibbert was ending his career stuck on the bench. I suppose that is a bummer, but seniors foul out of NCAA tournament games every year.

    I've read some interesting suggestions in this thread, but nothing to convince me that the existing rules for fouling need to be changed. I agree with the sentiment that it's easy to get in foul trouble under the current system, but what does "foul trouble" really mean? That a player with a few fouls should start being mindful of what calls the referees are making? That seems like something every player should try to figure out, whether they've committed any fouls or not.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    brooklyn
    imo five fouls is enough, and we absolutley should have a hard cap. what's insane to me is that you dont get an extra foul for each overtime. thats total crap.
    Excelsior!

Similar Threads

  1. Long time fan, first time poster.
    By Cdog923 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 06:46 PM
  2. More Time Wasters
    By knights68 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 12:51 PM
  3. Best use for a time machine EVER!!
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 12:05 PM
  4. What time is it?
    By hurleyfor3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 03:49 AM

Posting Permissions

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