Time to consider six fouls instead of five?

[trickshot]

3 things and I want elaborate too much:

1. Good defensive players don't foul. A Players fouls because they can't keep up and they get our of position.

2. Coaches teach the tougher team wins. To an 18 year old, this means if I push the hardest, I win.

3. Better refs. ACC refs call it differently than Big East refs. There needs to be more consistency in how games are being called.

Improve these three areas and there will be no need for more fouls.

[moonpie23]

5th foul - 2 minutes on the bench. after that, 3 mins on the bench for each foul,AND the fouled team gets shots AND the ball...


that might make it interesting...

[moonpie23]

and while we're talking about rules....could someone PUHLLLLEEEEZZZEEE nix that irritating alternating possession arrow rule>???? PUHLLLLEEEEEZZEE??

[loran16]

Hmmm, the NBA has 6 fouls for 48 minutes.

Take away 8 minutes, or 1/6 of time, and you should get 1/6 less fouls, for a total of FIVE!

Its some amazing math there! Seriously, anyone complaining about 5 fouls is a sore loser.

Though i agree on the possession arrow...that thing is an abomination. Even though we'd lose most jumps these days, I'd rather have jump balls than let some annoying arrow decide things.

[dukemsu]

I think the idea has merit. Too many coaches think "strategy" is to simply run every play at one guy they can't guard and try to get him out of the game. It is part of the continuing problem that basketball has in terms of having any consistent flow and creativity.

It also penalizes teams who have one really good big man, such as Georgetown or Ohio State with Oden last year. The entire NCAA tournament last year seemed to be about how many fouls Oden had and when. Some of his fouls were due to inexperience, but several were just guys slamming into him and hoping the ref would blow a whistle, which often happened.

I'm not sure you shouldn't be able to foul out, but I think at a minimum the rule should be 6. It's been 5 forever, and players are bigger, faster, and stronger.

For once, Vitale has a good point. Not sure his plan is the one that would work. But it's good that people are talking about it.

[DrDrawz]

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.

They call fouls in the Big East?

and while we're talking about rules....could someone PUHLLLLEEEEZZZEEE nix that irritating alternating possession arrow rule>???? PUHLLLLEEEEEZZEE??

Amen brotha!

[weezie]

and while we're talking about rules....could someone PUHLLLLEEEEZZZEEE nix that irritating alternating possession arrow rule>???? PUHLLLLEEEEEZZEE??

Oh yes indeed! Bring back the jump ball; I'm amazed that someone hasn't gotten their clock cleaned during the floor scrums. I hate that stupid arrow.

[Atldukie79]

Jump Balls - As much as I also dislike the alternating possession arrow, I am still in favor of it because:
1) I see no reason to inherently reward a taller/better jumper when there is a tie up between 2 players.
2) The refs have proven to have no skill(that's why they aren't players )at tossing the ball straight and high. How many times do the players seem to catch it on the way up? How often is the ball off center? Why have a play influenced by a ref's skill rather when he is there for his judgment?

Fouls
Regarding the math...I figure the calculation is how many fouls can you accrue and still play...
Therefore, the pro calculation is 48 minutes with 5 fouls, or 9.6 minutes per foul while the college calculation is 40 minutes with 4 fouls, or 10 minutes per foul.

AARRGH...enough math for one night.

[gep]

Jump Balls - As much as I also dislike the alternating possession arrow, I am still in favor of it because:
1) I see no reason to inherently reward a taller/better jumper when there is a tie up between 2 players.
2) The refs have proven to have no skill(that's why they aren't players )at tossing the ball straight and high. How many times do the players seem to catch it on the way up? How often is the ball off center? Why have a play influenced by a ref's skill rather when he is there for his judgment?

I was thinking... If there's a "jump ball" after a tie-up (or whatever), why not let each team decide who jumps... just like the beginning of the game? Why does it have to be the "tie-up" guys? Like certain technicals... the team gets to choose who shoots the FTs.

[A-Tex Devil]

Hmmm, the NBA has 6 fouls for 48 minutes.

Take away 8 minutes, or 1/6 of time, and you should get 1/6 less fouls, for a total of FIVE!

Its some amazing math there! Seriously, anyone complaining about 5 fouls is a sore loser.

Though i agree on the possession arrow...that thing is an abomination. Even though we'd lose most jumps these days, I'd rather have jump balls than let some annoying arrow decide things.

Two people have made this point -- it's not really correct. Or at the very least, there are 2 different ways of looking at it. Jumbo is right, you get 5 fouls in 48 minutes in the NBA, 4 fouls in college. The 5th and the 6th, respectively, and you are out.

You can't play 48/40 minutes with 6/5 fouls. You can play 48/40 minutes with 5/4 fouls though.

Still, I'm not sure I favor a change, and I even think I prefer giving each player a foul in overtime rather than moving it to 6. And anything more complicated than either of those shouldn't really be considered IMHO.

[Lulu]

Maybe 5 fouls would be enough if officials were perfect, but they're not. A couple tight or questionable calls on one player and a couple loose or no-calls on another seriously affects those players and teams. I've joked with friends that I'd like to see the hockey system in place at times. It's not like soccer where you've got twice as many players out there; 1 of 5 is huge. And furthermore, in other sports I think it generally requires a little more intent to "foul".

Plus, fouls are a part of the game. It is incredibly difficult for one player to play most of a game without picking up at least one. Playing game after game without ever fouling would be impossible; Hansbrough can't even do it.

Ironically, I think that if they called a tighter game, exactly by the rulebook, then 5 fouls might be sufficient. But with all the contact and banging that is allowed the calls can become fairly subjective, and we all know that it varies ref to ref and crew to crew. There is a clear benefit to being the more aggressive player, so players have to just see how to calls are going and adjust to the style set by the officials, playing as aggressively as permitted that game. There is so much contact in today's game that I simply don't think 5 fouls can cover the subjectiveness of so many calls and especially non-calls. Also, if the number of fouls has certain coaches strategically planning how to get the other team in foul trouble, then I think that alone says there are too few alloted.

I rather like the idea of giving up more free throws or ball possession when a player commits fouls beyond a certain limit. It forces the coach to decide if it is worth playing that same player or going to the bench. That still provides a benefit to deep teams without crippling those with a shorter bench. Whenever one of these double or triple OT games arise and all the starters foul out leaving the game to be decided by the bench... well, it's nice for those players, who are of course part of the team, but is that really what we'd like to see decide the most contested games of the season?

After just a couple early fouls players have to really start changing how they play the game, and they cannot play the same game they otherwise would, especially on D. This is probably what bothers me most. The level of play shouldn't be "hindered" by fouls, especially when most fouls are in fact accidental in this game. This aspect of the penalty goes far beyond the foul shots awarded if you ask me. I'd like to see all athletes out there competing at full strength, not at various levels of competitiveness due to everyone's foul situation.

And I'd REALLY like to see the intentional foul called on all fouls that are actually intentional.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

I'd REALLY like to see the intentional foul called on all fouls that are actually intentional.

AMEN!!!!
Love, Ima

[Indoor66]

After just a couple early fouls players have to really start changing how they play the game, and they cannot play the same game they otherwise would, especially on D. This is probably what bothers me most. The level of play shouldn't be "hindered" by fouls, especially when most fouls are in fact accidental in this game. This aspect of the penalty goes far beyond the foul shots awarded if you ask me. I'd like to see all athletes out there competing at full strength, not at various levels of competitiveness due to everyone's foul situation.

And I'd REALLY like to see the intentional foul called on all fouls that are actually intentional.

I agree that the intentional foul should be an intentional foul, whether in the first or last minute of the game.

As to your other point I quoted, why should a player be allowed to "play the same game they otherwise would" if that game is to foul the opposition, either on D or O? The rules are the rules. The game would be cleaner and skills rewarded if the refs just called all the fouls that occur. It is amazing, but the players and coaches would adjust to that style it that was the style permitted just as they adjust to the aggressive, rougher game permitted now.

[Wander]

Two people have made this point -- it's not really correct. Or at the very least, there are 2 different ways of looking at it. Jumbo is right, you get 5 fouls in 48 minutes in the NBA, 4 fouls in college. The 5th and the 6th, respectively, and you are out.

Uh... no. Don't make the math harder than it needs to be. In college, you can foul at the 8 minute mark, 16 minute mark, 24 minute mark, 32 minute mark, and 40 minute mark and have played the whole game. In the NBA, it's the 8 minute mark, 16, 24, 32, 40, and 48. It's the same in both - you get one foul every 8 minutes. That's it. The same rate. The "you get 5 fouls in the NBA, 4 fouls in college, so the ratios aren't the same" logic is complete nonsense.

And if you really want to get into the details, you actually get MORE fouls in college than in the NBA (per possesion), because the NBA game goes at a faster tempo because of the shorter shot clock.

[wilko]

Adding a foul back in an OT session... just like the extra time out.
That could be fun.


But going to 6 fouls as a matter of course?
BOGUS..

How about on a players Disqualifing foul, his point output is subtracted from the teams point total? (for a little Hockey-esqe flavor).

As much as I would like to think that would curtail physical play... all it would do is insure that no one will ever foulout again.

Something needs to be done to address overly physical play. If we HAD a Pistol Pete in the game today would we even be able to tell? He'd be constantly hammered.

[Lulu]

I agree that the intentional foul should be an intentional foul, whether in the first or last minute of the game.

As to your other point I quoted, why should a player be allowed to "play the same game they otherwise would" if that game is to foul the opposition, either on D or O? The rules are the rules. The game would be cleaner and skills rewarded if the refs just called all the fouls that occur. It is amazing, but the players and coaches would adjust to that style it that was the style permitted just as they adjust to the aggressive, rougher game permitted now.

I believe the point I wished to make is that there is a difference between having to adjust, and having to play with extreme caution. Being removed from the game is a severe penalty for a team when certain players are involved. They are forced to not even contest a lot of shots and passes on D because of the risk of being called for a foul. We've all seen it. We've also all seen many players foul out on calls that shouldn't have been called.

In other sports players might have to adjust, but they are not crippled by the threat of being removed from the game. The way the game is played and called these days, players on opposing teams can almost take someone out of a game just by jumping into them a few times and seeing what happens with the call (a player or two in particular might come to mind...)

I'd like to see play where defenders defend as they do when it it only the resulting foul shots (or perhaps ball possession as discussed here) that is of concern. That's more similar to other sports. I'd like trying-to-get-the-other-team-in-foul-trouble to not be part of the game at all; it is done not only because of how devastating it can be to lose a player but also because of how crippling it can be to have to play with just 2 or 3 fouls at certain points in the game. Refs aren't perfect, so when 2 fouls puts a player on the bench in the first half and half those fouls were bad calls... well that just sucks.