"That penalty is declined" coming to the NBA

[feldspar]

Read here:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2009-02-16-officiating-rule-change_N.htm?csp=usat.me

[RPS]

I would like teams to be able, after a foul, to choose between accepting free throws (when applicable) or taking the ball out. I hate the late-game parade to the free throw line that so often happens. The choice I suggest would eliminate situations where the fouling team gets a benefit from fouling.

[DukeCO2009]

I would like teams to be able, after a foul, to choose between accepting free throws (when applicable) or taking the ball out. I hate the late-game parade to the free throw line that so often happens. The choice I suggest would eliminate situations where the fouling team gets a benefit from fouling.

So you're saying you would want JWill to get another steal instead of relying on Drew Nicholas to miss two FT's? ;)

While at times annoying, fouling at the end of the game is an integral part of basketball strategy. Can't eliminate it.

[Johnboy]

I would like teams to be able, after a foul, to choose between accepting free throws (when applicable) or taking the ball out. I hate the late-game parade to the free throw line that so often happens. The choice I suggest would eliminate situations where the fouling team gets a benefit from fouling.

This very rule was tried several years ago experimentally in some preseason tournaments. It didn't work - if a team is trying to stop the clock, they'll just keep fouling, regardless of the rule. You'd think they would run out of players after awhile, but usually there are plenty of fouls to give at the end of games.

Perhaps a better rule would be to allow the team of the player who was fouled to designate their free throw shooter in the last minute or two of the game.

[MarkD83]

Have everyone practice free-throws so that when you are fouled you increase the lead :)

[gvtucker]

This very rule was tried several years ago experimentally in some preseason tournaments. It didn't work - if a team is trying to stop the clock, they'll just keep fouling, regardless of the rule. You'd think they would run out of players after awhile, but usually there are plenty of fouls to give at the end of games.

Perhaps a better rule would be to allow the team of the player who was fouled to designate their free throw shooter in the last minute or two of the game.

My preference would be that soccer's advantage rule be instituted.

[gep]

My preference would be that soccer's advantage rule be instituted.

I apologize... I'm not a soccer fan. Can you very briefly explain the "soccer's advantage" rule? Is that where one player goes out, and play 6 on 5... or 5 on 4? Or is that only in hockey?:rolleyes:

[gvtucker]

I apologize... I'm not a soccer fan. Can you very briefly explain the "soccer's advantage" rule? Is that where one player goes out, and play 6 on 5... or 5 on 4? Or is that only in hockey?:rolleyes:

No. Essentially, if the player has an advantage that would be lost if the ref called a foul and stopped play, the referee can use his discretion and not call a foul.

[crimsonandblue]

No. Essentially, if the player has an advantage that would be lost if the ref called a foul and stopped play, the referee can use his discretion and not call a foul.

Well, the NBA already has the clear path rules. Are you talking more end game stuff? Refs already swallow whistles down the stretch. I'd hate to give them further justification to rely on concern over advantage plays. Just call the stuff.

Instead of the double bonus, inside of two minutes go to 3 to make 2, but still one and one until ten fouls. Incentivize play without fouling and maybe there will, you know, be play without fouling.

[COYS]

No. Essentially, if the player has an advantage that would be lost if the ref called a foul and stopped play, the referee can use his discretion and not call a foul.

I like this idea in theory, for certain. It would help in limited situations such as when a defender bumps a player on the block right before they go up for an easy bucket if the foul would be called on the floor, essentially taking two points away from the offensive team and (possibly) rewarding the defender committing an error. It would also work if say a guard were fouled while making a pass to a wide open forward under the basket. In that situation it would be much better to forget the foul and allow the forward to get the easy two points. The problem with the advantage rule is that in soccer, advantage is almost always automatically forfeited if the attacking team takes a shot on goal. This makes sense because goals are hard to come by in soccer so if a player has a good chance on goal from the run of play, it makes more sense to take that chance than to try and score off a free kick/set piece. In basketball, made baskets are much more frequent, which would make it harder for players to determine whether to take a shot or take the foul. Say a forward is double teamed and fouled while making a pass to a wide open guard on the wing. How long does advantage last? Does it end the second the guard shoots the three or should the guard be allowed to shoot the three and then claim the foul if the shot is missed? What happens if the offense rebounds and then sticks it back immediately? Free throws are very valuable in basketball, far more valuable than a free kick is in soccer when it comes to likelihood of return. I think the only time the advantage rule would be useful would be before one team is in the bonus or at the end of games if the defensive team is up by three and wants to foul to force two freethrows and prevent the offensive team the chance to tie. In that situation, I think I would support giving the offensive team the option of taking the ball out instead of shooting the freethrows. Otherwise, I think it will be entirely too hard to regulate such a subjective concept as advantage in a game like basketball.

[throatybeard]

Nice to see you here, Crimsonandblue. Stick around. Wheat too, and Klemnop. As the general tone of the board has declined, we've lost many of our civil, intelligent posters from other schools.

[RPS]

So you're saying you would want JWill to get another steal instead of relying on Drew Nicholas to miss two FT's? ;)

While at times annoying, fouling at the end of the game is an integral part of basketball strategy. Can't eliminate it.I remember a game against (I think) Clemson some years back where Duke was virtually perfect (only missed one FT) down the stretch but because Clemson kept hitting threes, they nearly caught up. How is it fair for a team to benefit so dramatically from breaking the rules (fouling)? If a team is behind, how about requiring them to play good defense to come back -- novel concept, huh?

[Jarhead]

Let's clarify intentional.
We have a rule that penalizes intentional fouls with two shots and possession. Why don't we just enforce that rule? Having an exception to the rule just to stop the clock doesn't make sense. If the intention is to allow one team to be able to stop the clock, then change the rules to allow more timeouts. Not a very good idea, but it's not as bad as not calling intentional fouls. On the other hand, create an option to shoot free throws, or to retain possession. That would eliminate the problem entirely.

[SilkyJ]

Have everyone practice free-throws so that when you are fouled you increase the lead :)

Its funny, on sportscenter a couple nights ago they showed someone (ben gordon maybe?) getting fouled on a 3 with 2.5 seconds left or something and the bulls down 3 points. He made all 3 points and Scott Van Pelt made a comment to the effect of "in college they'd miss all 3, in the NBA they make all 3." Its so true.

[devildownunder]

So you're saying you would want JWill to get another steal instead of relying on Drew Nicholas to miss two FT's? ;)

While at times annoying, fouling at the end of the game is an integral part of basketball strategy. Can't eliminate it.

I'd eliminate it in a heartbeat. Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean it's a good thing. Turning the end of a basketball game into a free-throw shooting contest results in decided a many-faceted game based on just one tiny aspect of it, and at the most critical time. It is akin to deciding NHL games by shootout -- only it's less exciting. And even the NHL realises how absurd a way to decide a game that is, which is why it doesn't decide playoff games that way and only uses the shootouts during the regular season, to avoid the dreaded ties.

I've long hoped for radical reform about the way the game is played in its final sequences. A better, more exciting endgame would result if we reset timeouts to 1 per team during the final two minutes -- no matter how many they had used to that point, and gave teams the option to receive the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws.

Or, if you MUST have free throws, then I propose making intentional fouls 3 shots and the ball, which sounds counterintuitive but that penalty is so severe that I doubt teams would foul unless they had absolutely no hope.

You spend 38 minutes (or 46 in the nba) playing basketball. Why turn the resolution of the contest into a skills competition?

[hurleyfor3]

Read here:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2009-02-16-officiating-rule-change_N.htm?csp=usat.me

Why does the NBA have to get this convoluted? Why can't they just make too-many-men reviewable by instant replay, revert the game back to when the infraction occurred and award a T?

Related Trivia Question: In what famous NBA game did a player intentionally draw a T in order to keep his teem from losing?

[gvtucker]

Why does the NBA have to get this convoluted? Why can't they just make too-many-men reviewable by instant replay, revert the game back to when the infraction occurred and award a T?

Related Trivia Question: In what famous NBA game did a player intentionally draw a T in order to keep his teem from losing?

Easy one. Suns/Celtics playoffs, 1976, Paul Westphal calls a time out he doesn't have to get a T and take the ball out of bounds at halfcourt.

[hurleyfor3]

Easy one. Suns/Celtics playoffs, 1976, Paul Westphal calls a time out he doesn't have to get a T and take the ball out of bounds at halfcourt.

Yep, except it was the finals (then called the World Championship), not just the playoffs :)

With the rules of the day, I've wondered if it was common practice, since it seems like such an obvious thing to do.

[BlueDevilJay]

My preference would be that soccer's advantage rule be instituted.

That would be a fantastic idea, cept that then they'd let play continue and coaches would be screaming Wheres the Foul???? if they didn't convert on the advantage given. Pretty similar to football there too (soccer). To a degree though, some refs DO already do that, if player A has blown past player B, and B then attempts to smack at A in order to keep him from scoring, I have seen the refs swallow their whistle and allow A to continue on to the basket and finish the play, instead of stopping it.

[tommy]

I'd eliminate it in a heartbeat. Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean it's a good thing. Turning the end of a basketball game into a free-throw shooting contest results in decided a many-faceted game based on just one tiny aspect of it, and at the most critical time. It is akin to deciding NHL games by shootout -- only it's less exciting. And even the NHL realises how absurd a way to decide a game that is, which is why it doesn't decide playoff games that way and only uses the shootouts during the regular season, to avoid the dreaded ties.

I've long hoped for radical reform about the way the game is played in its final sequences. A better, more exciting endgame would result if we reset timeouts to 1 per team during the final two minutes -- no matter how many they had used to that point, and gave teams the option to receive the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws.

Or, if you MUST have free throws, then I propose making intentional fouls 3 shots and the ball, which sounds counterintuitive but that penalty is so severe that I doubt teams would foul unless they had absolutely no hope.

You spend 38 minutes (or 46 in the nba) playing basketball. Why turn the resolution of the contest into a skills competition?

I totally agree with you with regard to the timeout limitation, but I would go even more radical on the numbing, agonizing, and game-distorting parade to the free throw line at the end. My rule would simply say this: You stay with the 10 team fouls to the double bonus, but at a higher number, perhaps 13 or so, no more free throws. The team which is fouled simply receives two points. Just put two in the book. That's all. That would really discourage the excessive fouling and force teams to try to play defense to get the ball back and catch up. Sure they could keep fouling, give up a truly automatic two and try to hit 3's to catch up incrementally, but that's going to be pretty tough to do.