Eliminate fouling out?

[gumbomoop]

Latest installment in ESPN's "Change the Game" blog, in which Eamonn Brennan argues in favor of disqualifying disqualifications.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/59696/change-the-game-disqualify-this

Among the key set-up points:


"Let's agree to table any and all SOTG (Sanctity of the Game) arguments."
"In 1990, the Big East itself let its foul-out freak flag fly."
"And yet, 22 years later, nothing has changed. Every year we are treated to -- or maybe the phrase is bludgeoned by -- a score of big-time games either outright ruined or at least negatively affected by foul-outs."
"Every year, basketball remains the only major American sport in which players can be totally disqualified from the game for the accrual of minor penalties. This is profoundly dumb."
"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."
"That doesn't mean we should give individual players a free pass to hack at will. That's the last thing we should want. Instead, we should devise a solution that urges players to play good, non-hacky defense."
"The NCAA's member schools should finish the work the Big East started in 1990."

For Brennan's several proposed solutions, you'll want to read the article.

[Duvall]

Once again, Seth Greenberg just misses.

[gumbomoop]

Once again, Seth Greenberg just misses.

Good line. Maybe bullet-point 6 is Seth-inspired.

[lotusland]

Maybe TT would play with less restraint...er nevermind:D

[wilko]

How about DONT FOUL!?!?
The proposal awards shots and the ball for for fouls over a certain limit... not sure what that solves.

[CameronBornAndBred]

"That doesn't mean we should give individual players a free pass to hack at will. That's the last thing we should want. Instead, we should devise a solution that urges players to play good, non-hacky defense."

Except for that one guy that coaches will inevitably have on their teams with the soul purpose of being a goon, thus turning basketball into hockey without skates.

Edit..I can see the stat line now... Jim Giganthor, 0 points, 5 rebounds, 0 assists, 0 turnovers, 12 fouls, 20 minutes

[Dukeface88]

"In 1990, the Big East itself let its foul-out freak flag fly."
"And yet, 22 years later, nothing has changed. Every year we are treated to -- or maybe the phrase is bludgeoned by -- a score of big-time games either outright ruined or at least negatively affected by foul-outs."

Might I suggest this was because it did not work in practice? I'd also contest that the Big East was the "marquee hoops conference" at that time, given they won zero championships between '86 and '99, but perhaps that's just me.



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

And might I further suggest that part of being one of "the best collegiate basketball players" is the ability to avoid foul trouble and/or to create fould trouble for the opponent?

Also, he seems to claiming that fouling-out leads to over-officiating. I think he has the connection backwards - over officiating may lead to foulin-out, but I doubt causation flows the other way. Officials aren't going to be more likely to call fouls because it occasionally results in someone sitting; if anything, it seems to me the refs usually swallow the whistle once a player picks up their fourth (or if they keep playing with their second in the first half).

[sagegrouse]

I don't know about eliminating DQs, but I would eliminate hack-a-Shaq. Simply allow a team, once a player has been on the receiving end of five fouls (or seven or ten), to have the option of letting other players take the FTs.

I would also try to bring games to a more orderly close, instead of having the last 60 seconds take 20 minutes. Once a team has incurred three fouls in a minute (or two minutes), the fouled team gets the ball after the FTs.

sage

[davekay1971]

By simply allowing a 6th foul, the Big East immediately turned their games into slow, ugly wrestling matches. If anything, the conference declined (the BE was a bugger monster in the early 80s with Gt, Cuse, and SJU, peaking in 85). The reputation it earned was for overly physical, slow basketball. Eliminating disqualifications would only amplify that effect.

A better solution, if one feels the need to radically change the rules and speed up play, would be to eliminate free throws. On shooting fouls award the basket. On non-shooting fouls award possession. On ALL fouls also put the offending player in a hockey-style penalty box for 1 to 2 minutes of game time and let the game go 5 on 4. That would be a sufficient disadvantage to discourage most fouls, and would eliminate the stoppage of play for a minute or more to shoot free throws.

FWIW, I see no reason to alter the current number of fouls or the free throw system. But, if one wants to fiddle with a good game for the sake of fiddling, there's my humble suggestion.

[SCMatt33]

I'm really leery of his proposal to essentially create a "triple bonus" after x number of team fouls. A team I'm the triple bonus who is leading will essentially clinch the game with 1-3 minutes left depending o how big that lead is. Team can no longer foul to stop the clock and get the ball back. Also factor in that team fouls from the second half carry over to OT and you'd really change things.

[Acymetric]

I'm really leery of his proposal to essentially create a "triple bonus" after x number of team fouls. A team I'm the triple bonus who is leading will essentially clinch the game with 1-3 minutes left depending o how big that lead is. Team can no longer foul to stop the clock and get the ball back. Also factor in that team fouls from the second half carry over to OT and you'd really change things.

That is an intentional consequence, the argument is that fouling to get back into the game is not a desirable ending to a game.

[SCMatt33]

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

[1999ballboy]

Terrible idea. I think that perhaps eliminating the bonus could be a good idea, though. It would lessen the amount of control that refs have over the flow of the game, and would also eliminate those tiresome endgames riddled with intentional fouling.

I'd also be in favor of shortening the shot clock in the last several minutes of games, solely for the reason that it would be fun.

[Newton_14]

Interesting topic for the off season, and props to Gumbs for the thread. I have always had mixed feelings about players fouling out. Especially given how college ref's are less than great at what they do. I do see the point also about no other sport kicking players out of the game for fouls, errors, red flags, penalties, etc. I sort of like the penalty box idea for committing a 5th and beyond foul, but no way the 5 on 4 thing works for hoops. It is far easier to score in hoops than in hockey, so not a good dynamic there. If basketball has a 2 minute penalty box, a sub would have to come in to keep it 5 on 5.

I really don't think eliminating fouling out would have a negative impact if handled correctly. I don't think it would lead to a hackfest or goons, etc. It would change the play in 1st halves for the better as no one would have to sit out due to foul trouble.

I kind of like the 3 to make 2 for fouls 5 & 6, and anything beyond that becomes 3 to make 2 plus the ball. That would be stiff enough punishment to deter players from simply fouling without regard.

Looking forward to hearing possible alternate solutions from others. Is there a way to make the game better by eliminating fouling out?

[gwlaw99]

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.

[Eternal Outlaw]

Wouldn't be bad to move to 6 fouls for a foul out. 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.

I thought the CBA had a decent solution. No foul outs but after the 'foul out' foul, you'd award the team a technical like free throw in addition to what happened on the play.

[OldPhiKap]

Worst. Idea. EVER.

[weezie]

Worst. Idea. EVER.

OPK is right. Eliminate fouling out and you eliminate "AHHHHHH, SEEEE YA!"

Eamonn Brennan must need some funds for his credit card bill. Ridiculous.

[COYS]

Terrible idea. I think that perhaps eliminating the bonus could be a good idea, though. It would lessen the amount of control that refs have over the flow of the game, and would also eliminate those tiresome endgames riddled with intentional fouling.

I'd also be in favor of shortening the shot clock in the last several minutes of games, solely for the reason that it would be fun.

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.

[FellowTraveler]

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 (though, obviously not one everyone must agree is a problem) and a solution (no more foul-outs) that, on the surface at least, doesn't suggest or create a principle that is inconsistent with other aspects of the game. So, though my general attitude is that there's no reason to mess around with the rules -- I like the game just fine -- this one has some potential. It's all about implementation, of course -- I don't think anybody would be happy if the result was a significant increase in fouls committed.

If foul-outs were eliminated, there are three basic principles that I think should guide implementation:

1) The changes/new rules should be as simple, elegant, and consistent as possible. Things like penalizing fouls differently if they occur in the last minute, creating a hockey-style "power play," or shortening the shot clock at the end of the game, fail this test for me. (No disrespect intended to the posters who suggested them; reading such ideas has been fun, even when I don't agree with them.

2) The changes should penalize fouling enough to prevent hackfests. I share davekay1971's unpleasant memories of the Big East in the 6 foul era, if not his proposed fiddling.

3) The changes shouldn't penalize fouling too much. Fouls are inevitably going to occur; if something relatively minor like an illegal hand-check results in a 2 minute power play, that's an excessive penalty that risks turning the entire game into a contest to see who can foul least.

My gut reaction is that 3-to-make-2 probably isn't a sufficiently severe consequence, and power plays and the automatic awarding of baskets are probably too severe. Solutions that involve the fouled team retaining possession of the ball in addition to getting free throw(s) would pretty much eliminate the ability to foul to get the ball back in late-game comeback situations ... I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. Thinking about it does, however, remind me of a slightly-related pet peeve: The intentional foul by the team leading in the closing seconds, in order to prevent the trailing team from shooting a three-pointer. It shouldn't bother me as much as it does (I don't think I can come up with a rationale for that being inappropriate that doesn't also apply to the trailing team fouling to get the ball back.) And yet, it always strikes me as unsporting.

[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.

[Wander]

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.


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.

[badgerbd]

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.

[UrinalCake]

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.

[FellowTraveler]

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.

[Wander]

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).

[FellowTraveler]

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.

[CDu]

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.

[camion]

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.

[COYS]

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.

[Jderf]

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...

[tommy]

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.

[kmspeaks]

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.

[tdrake51]

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.

[FellowTraveler]

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 (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?28640-Eliminate-fouling-out&p=579840#post579840). 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.

[UrinalCake]

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.

[CameronBornAndBred]

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.

[OldPhiKap]

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.

[oldnavy]

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??

[devildeac]

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 ;>) .

[Wheat/"/"/"]

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.