PDA

View Full Version : Speed Up the Game



camion
06-09-2015, 07:48 AM
How to discourage interminable fouling at the end of the game? That's been discussed before. I'll try one more time.

If the fouling is done to stop the clock and/or get the ball back then in the last two minutes give the fouled team the option of:

1. free throws or

2. Run 20 seconds off the clock and get the ball back.

bluenorth
06-09-2015, 08:22 AM
'Back in the day', one of the FIBA rules was to let a team that was fouled decide whether to shoot the free throws or take the ball out of bounds (sorry, can't remember if it was during the last two minutes or any other restrictions). So if you had a great shooter get hacked, you might put him on the line. If the player who got fouled was Tristan Thompson, you definitely took the ball. I wasn't a big fan of FIBA at the time, but that was one rule that I did like. I've also come to appreciate FIBA's 24 second shot clock. People get concerned about how that effects the pace of the game, but good coaches find ways to adapt (and then all the other coaches copy them!).

MCFinARL
06-09-2015, 08:24 AM
How to discourage interminable fouling at the end of the game? That's been discussed before. I'll try one more time.

If the fouling is done to stop the clock and/or get the ball back then in the last two minutes give the fouled team the option of:

1. free throws or

2. Run 20 seconds off the clock and get the ball back.

Interesting idea, but I can see the potential for interminable delays while the officials determine exactly when the foul occurred so they can get the clock set correctly. Also, what if the foul occurs during the last 20 seconds? Is the game over?

And how does one determine if the fouling is done to stop the clock and/or get the ball back? Sometimes it is fairly obvious, but not always. So this creates the potential for delay as officials put their heads together to come up with the correct ruling.

Ranidad
06-09-2015, 08:36 AM
Personally, I feel that while it can slow the game down, forcing the other team to make free throws should still be a strategic option. Because of that I'm not a fan of awarding the possession as an option after a foul.

The intentional foul rule is intended to address this but is rarely called. If that is enforced then It works for me.

So my sense is that there are two factors that encourage late game fouling even in games where the outcome is unlikely to change.

1) 3 vs. 2 - when the team trailing can shoot threes and limit the leader to 2 points.
2). Reluctance to call an intentional foul when it is clear that was the intent.

Haven't thought through specific implementation but how about a new "class" of foul inside the last 2 minutes. Any foul in the backcourt results in 3 free throws, unless it is called intentional where existing rule applies.

Team trailing can still go for steals and foul but extra free throw awarded to help keep scoring option equal for leading team.

duke blue brewcrew
06-09-2015, 10:36 AM
'Back in the day', one of the FIBA rules was to let a team that was fouled decide whether to shoot the free throws or take the ball out of bounds (sorry, can't remember if it was during the last two minutes or any other restrictions). So if you had a great shooter get hacked, you might put him on the line. If the player who got fouled was Tristan Thompson, you definitely took the ball. I wasn't a big fan of FIBA at the time, but that was one rule that I did like. I've also come to appreciate FIBA's 24 second shot clock. People get concerned about how that effects the pace of the game, but good coaches find ways to adapt (and then all the other coaches copy them!).

I like that rule a lot. That's a value add that eliminates the "Hack-A-Shaq" strategy from the game that all just love so much

Skitzle
06-09-2015, 10:36 AM
They should make a new type of foul

The deliberate foul. It's a foul made X feet away from the basket with the intention of stopping the clock.

When a deliberate foul is made, the clock doesn't stop during the free throws.

That would stop fouling REAL quick.

Bluedog
06-09-2015, 10:46 AM
Personally, I feel that while it can slow the game down, forcing the other team to make free throws should still be a strategic option. Because of that I'm not a fan of awarding the possession as an option after a foul.

The intentional foul rule is intended to address this but is rarely called. If that is enforced then It works for me.

So my sense is that there are two factors that encourage late game fouling even in games where the outcome is unlikely to change.

1) 3 vs. 2 - when the team trailing can shoot threes and limit the leader to 2 points.
2). Reluctance to call an intentional foul when it is clear that was the intent.

Haven't thought through specific implementation but how about a new "class" of foul inside the last 2 minutes. Any foul in the backcourt results in 3 free throws, unless it is called intentional where existing rule applies.

Team trailing can still go for steals and foul but extra free throw awarded to help keep scoring option equal for leading team.

There is no intentional foul rule in NCAA basketball anymore. There are only flagrants (1 and 2). Intent is not supposed to matter, just the severity of the foul.

Ranidad
06-09-2015, 11:12 AM
There is no intentional foul rule in NCAA basketball anymore. There are only flagrants (1 and 2). Intent is not supposed to matter, just the severity of the foul.

Duh. No wonder officials are reluctant to call intentional fouls.

That said, maybe it is a "deliberate foul" as another post mentioned that results in 3 free throws. If that only applies in the backcourt teams could choose to wait until after mid court to foul which would allow more time to run off the clock

That way even if both teams shoot 50% (leader from the line and trailer from 3) the deficit shouldn't be reduced which would help reduce fouling as a catch up strategy. No clock issues and leader still has to do more than just invound the ball to eat clock.

Tom B.
06-09-2015, 11:34 AM
'Back in the day', one of the FIBA rules was to let a team that was fouled decide whether to shoot the free throws or take the ball out of bounds (sorry, can't remember if it was during the last two minutes or any other restrictions). So if you had a great shooter get hacked, you might put him on the line. If the player who got fouled was Tristan Thompson, you definitely took the ball. I wasn't a big fan of FIBA at the time, but that was one rule that I did like.


The NCAA tried this on an experimental basis in the early-season tournaments a while back (I want to say 1999 or 2000). It was a disaster. Teams didn't stop fouling, even when the opposing team took the ball out of bounds. In fact, the trailing team fouled more frequently and harder, because now the only way to get possession back was to try to force a steal. The endgames actually became longer and uglier. The NCAA abandoned the rule change after that experimental period, and hasn't looked back at it since then.

bluenorth
06-09-2015, 12:04 PM
The NCAA tried this on an experimental basis in the early-season tournaments a while back (I want to say 1999 or 2000). It was a disaster. Teams didn't stop fouling, even when the opposing team took the ball out of bounds. In fact, the trailing team fouled more frequently and harder, because now the only way to get possession back was to try to force a steal. The endgames actually became longer and uglier. The NCAA abandoned the rule change after that experimental period, and hasn't looked back at it since then.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that experiment. It makes sense that teams would go that route to try to get the ball back. FIBA doesn't use it any longer either. I guess that the coaches really did adapt to the rules.

Duvall
06-09-2015, 12:08 PM
The NCAA tried this on an experimental basis in the early-season tournaments a while back (I want to say 1999 or 2000). It was a disaster. Teams didn't stop fouling, even when the opposing team took the ball out of bounds. In fact, the trailing team fouled more frequently and harder, because now the only way to get possession back was to try to force a steal. The endgames actually became longer and uglier. The NCAA abandoned the rule change after that experimental period, and hasn't looked back at it since then.

Basically, every team would have to play the way Louisville plays all the time. And who wants that?

BigWayne
06-09-2015, 12:55 PM
Last two minutes of the game, make any foul in the backcourt be a three shot foul. This will make teams either play tough defense or wait until the ball gets across half court, which gets some time run off the clock. Alternatively, make it any foul outside the 3 pt line.

duke blue brewcrew
06-09-2015, 12:56 PM
College basketball is one of, if not the fastest (total time needed to complete the event) broadcasted team sports out there. It's typically barely over the 2hr mark. Most NBA games are in the neighborhood of 2:30+hrs and football...holy crap that's a long broadcast. Yes, the college game is different from the pros. SO WHAT. Why is different bad? Is college football different from the NFL? YES, very different. If you want to eliminate the "Hack a Shaq" strategy (an NBA concept btw) then fine, I'm all for it. It will make the game prettier and more fluid, that's for sure. To say the game takes too long and needs to be sped up, that's silly.

gus
06-09-2015, 12:59 PM
If the goal is to shorten the running time that the 40 minute game actually takes to play, I think shortening the shot clock will have the opposite effect. This is not an offensive efficiency argument, but rather the simple fact that with more possessions there will be more dead ball time, more fouls, more time outs...

rsvman
06-09-2015, 12:59 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to take away the strategy of stopping the clock that allows a team that is behind to potentially mount a comeback and win the game. It's part of the game.

I find that people's feelings about this particular strategy vary a lot depending on whether their team is behind or ahead at the time the strategy is initiated. If we're losing to UNC by 7 points with about two minutes left in the game, I sure as heck want to be able to employ the strategy.

The strategy fails when the team that is leading makes free throws. The responsibility for that lies on the team. If they can't make free throws, maybe they deserve to lose. It makes no sense to change a rule because players are not skilled enough to make a free throw.

gep
06-09-2015, 01:02 PM
What about in the last 2 minutes (or whatever) the team being fouled can pick any player on the court at the time of the foul to shoot the free throws. Foul Jah and get Quinn or Tyus to shoot the free throws.

Lar77
06-09-2015, 01:15 PM
What about in the last 2 minutes (or whatever) the team being fouled can pick any player on the court at the time of the foul to shoot the free throws. Foul Jah and get Quinn or Tyus to shoot the free throws.

I would limit it only to off the ball fouls. Clearly, that is a strategy intended to disrupt the flow of the game.

I truly think the bigger change is the timeout reduction. There are other changes that could be made, but as OP pointed out, College basketball generally fits into a 2 hour time slot.

Tripping William
06-09-2015, 01:22 PM
What about in the last 2 minutes (or whatever) the team being fouled can pick any player on the court at the time of the foul to shoot the free throws. Foul Jah and get Quinn or Tyus to shoot the free throws.

This has possibilities. Foul Brian Zoubek and send Jon Scheyer to the line, meaning that Matt Howard gets a broken sternum trying to lay that pick on Zoubs instead of on Kyle Singler . . . .

hurleyfor3
06-09-2015, 01:23 PM
We've won five national championships under all those old, ineffective rules. I have no complaints.

darthur
06-09-2015, 01:55 PM
They should make a new type of foul

The deliberate foul. It's a foul made X feet away from the basket with the intention of stopping the clock.

When a deliberate foul is made, the clock doesn't stop during the free throws.

That would stop fouling REAL quick.

But now the winning team has an incredibly strong incentive to intentionally foul!

Except they are doing it to eat more clock, instead of less. Hmmm. Sounds hard to enforce :).

Hack-a-Shaq is easier to fix. Off-ball fouls give you the ball back. The NBA already does this in the final 2 minutes, but not before-hand. They don't do it before-hand because there is some disagreement about whether Hack-a-Shaq is actually bad.

superdave
06-09-2015, 02:15 PM
Has Tyler Hansborough vacated all those illegitimate free throws yet?

Tom B.
06-09-2015, 02:19 PM
I truly think the bigger change is the timeout reduction. There are other changes that could be made, but as OP pointed out, College basketball generally fits into a 2 hour time slot.

Well, a non-televised college basketball game would fit into a two-hour slot. A televised game, with all the media timeouts, usually comes in a little over two hours, maybe 10-12 minutes (that's the typical game -- one with an above-average number of fouls or other play stoppages obviously will last longer). That's why ESPN's insistence on trying to shoehorn games into two-hour slots is so frustrating -- if your team plays the 9:00 PM game, you almost always miss the first few minutes because the 7:00 PM game isn't over yet.

When Fox Sports was doing Sunday night ACC games, I thought most of their coverage was mediocre -- but one thing they did right was allot two hours and 15 minutes (sometimes two hours and 30 minutes) for the lead game when they were showing two games back-to-back.

If the NCAA wants to reduce game length, put a time limit on replay reviews. If the officials don't see indisputable evidence to overturn the call in, say, 60 seconds, the call stands. Also limit the ability of coaches to call for a review. Go to a challenge system like the NFL -- each coach gets two challenges per game. If the challenge is successful, it's not deducted from the coach's remaining challenges. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the team is charged the challenge and a timeout. As it stands now, a coach can get a free timeout just by asking for a replay review, and it's taking even longer to play those last two minutes of game action.

TexHawk
06-09-2015, 02:26 PM
If the NCAA wants to reduce game length, put a time limit on replay reviews. If the officials don't see indisputable evidence to overturn the call in, say, 60 seconds, the call stands. Also limit the ability of coaches to call for a review. Go to a challenge system like the NFL -- each coach gets two challenges per game. If the challenge is successful, it's not deducted from the coach's remaining challenges. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the team is charged the challenge and a timeout. As it stands now, a coach can get a free timeout just by asking for a replay review, and it's taking even longer to play those last two minutes of game action.

+1000.

Also, don't the new timeout rules remove the "dead ball at 12:05, coach calls timeout, deadball at 11:58, TV timeout" shenanigans? That may not speed things up tremendously, but I will be A LOT less frustrated. That's almost as infuriating as the NFL "score, timeout, kickoff, timeout" bs.

Lar77
06-09-2015, 02:36 PM
Well, a non-televised college basketball game would fit into a two-hour slot. A televised game, with all the media timeouts, usually comes in a little over two hours, maybe 10-12 minutes (that's the typical game -- one with an above-average number of fouls or other play stoppages obviously will last longer). That's why ESPN's insistence on trying to shoehorn games into two-hour slots is so frustrating -- if your team plays the 9:00 PM game, you almost always miss the first few minutes because the 7:00 PM game isn't over yet.

When Fox Sports was doing Sunday night ACC games, I thought most of their coverage was mediocre -- but one thing they did right was allot two hours and 15 minutes (sometimes two hours and 30 minutes) for the lead game when they were showing two games back-to-back.

If the NCAA wants to reduce game length, put a time limit on replay reviews. If the officials don't see indisputable evidence to overturn the call in, say, 60 seconds, the call stands. Also limit the ability of coaches to call for a review. Go to a challenge system like the NFL -- each coach gets two challenges per game. If the challenge is successful, it's not deducted from the coach's remaining challenges. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the team is charged the challenge and a timeout. As it stands now, a coach can get a free timeout just by asking for a replay review, and it's taking even longer to play those last two minutes of game action.

Agree that the reviews are aggravating as currently done. The scope needs to make more sense and there needs to be less time taken to review.

Duvall
06-09-2015, 02:37 PM
+1000.

Also, don't the new timeout rules remove the "dead ball at 12:05, coach calls timeout, deadball at 11:58, TV timeout" shenanigans? That may not speed things up tremendously, but I will be A LOT less frustrated. That's almost as infuriating as the NFL "score, timeout, kickoff, timeout" bs.

Unless your coach is savvily exploiting that rule to give a team with a short bench an extended break. Then it's a lot less aggravating.

Turk
06-09-2015, 03:02 PM
+1000.

Also, don't the new timeout rules remove the "dead ball at 12:05, coach calls timeout, deadball at 11:58, TV timeout" shenanigans? That may not speed things up tremendously, but I will be A LOT less frustrated. That's almost as infuriating as the NFL "score, timeout, kickoff, timeout" bs.

Correct, within 30 seconds before the TV timeout, or anytime after (assuming no break in play). For example, if a team calls TO at 16:20, that will be used as the 16:00 TV timeout. Or, if there's no break in the action until after the 16:00 mark and the coach calls a TO at 15:25, same thing applies.

Years ago, the first big improvement in the endgame came when a team got 2 shots on the 10th foul, which gave enough room for competent foul shooting teams to close out a game, and gave the defense a small bit of hope with the thee 1-and-1 chances on team fouls 7 through 9. I think that's fine.

To me, reducing the number of timeouts at the end of the game is the next biggest lever to keep the game moving. I dread the games that go into the last two minutes with both teams in the bonus and both teams holding 4 timeouts each. Let the overcoaching begin! Given that every game has 4 TV timeouts each half (even if it's not on TV), a team should only get three timeouts for the entire game.

They did reduce the number of timeouts by one, but any savings there will be lost by increased scope of possible replay reviews. One step forward, two steps back.

snowdenscold
06-09-2015, 03:20 PM
The real answer to speeding up the game has already been solved: I simply have it recording, and start watching ~30-45 minutes after the game has started. Then there's always enough buffer to fast forward through TV and coaches timeouts (and monitor reviews) :)

Also, by using the "Forward 30 seconds" button (or 20, depending), I can watch football games in about an hour and a half, and baseball games in an hour =).

The play's whistled dead, and boom, they're right back on the line of scrimmage about to snap. Or, pitch, pitch, pitch, pitch - takes 30 seconds to see 6 pitches.

Am I a terrible sports watcher or what?

duke blue brewcrew
06-09-2015, 03:27 PM
That's almost as infuriating as the NFL "score, timeout, kickoff, timeout" bs.

That NFL timeout scenario is worse than reality TV show ever created...and that's saying something! It doesn't make any sense what so ever.


Unless your coach is savvily exploiting that rule to give a team with a short bench an extended break. Then it's a lot less aggravating.

I couldn't agree more. This is an instance where that is incredibly useful and Coach K played that well with a short bench

-jk
06-09-2015, 03:29 PM
The real answer to speeding up the game has already been solved: I simply have it recording, and start watching ~30-45 minutes after the game has started. Then there's always enough buffer to fast forward through TV and coaches timeouts (and monitor reviews) :)

Also, by using the "Forward 30 seconds" button (or 20, depending), I can watch football games in about an hour and a half, and baseball games in an hour =).

The play's whistled dead, and boom, they're right back on the line of scrimmage about to snap. Or, pitch, pitch, pitch, pitch - takes 30 seconds to see 6 pitches.

Am I a terrible sports watcher or what?

Yeah, I love my Tivo, too...

My patience somehow seems to fail me in March and April, though.

-jk

Indoor66
06-09-2015, 03:52 PM
My pet peeve is the use of replay to get the clock reset to the .1 second at ANY point in the game. Part of the game is the fact that the referee must call for the clock to stop. That is a human reaction. That is part of the game. Let it go. If the clock continues to run or fails to start, check it and get it right - to the second and get the hell on with the game.

gus
06-09-2015, 04:21 PM
Hack-a-Shaq is easier to fix. Off-ball fouls give you the ball back. The NBA already does this in the final 2 minutes, but not before-hand. They don't do it before-hand because there is some disagreement about whether Hack-a-Shaq is actually bad.

I think the solution for "hack-a-shaq" is fairly obvious, and has been part of the game for over 90 years: make your free throws. I just don't like the idea of changing rules to protect certain players from their own weaknesses.

Prior to 1924, the rule a lot of people were advocating was actually in effect: the fouled team elected who would shoot the free throw. This was changed to the current system in 1924. I'm not sure why, but perhaps people didn't much like that teams had free throw specialists who essentially meant automatic field goals on any foul.

Billy Dat
06-09-2015, 04:31 PM
The real answer to speeding up the game has already been solved: I simply have it recording, and start watching ~30-45 minutes after the game has started. Then there's always enough buffer to fast forward through TV and coaches timeouts (and monitor reviews) :)

Also, by using the "Forward 30 seconds" button (or 20, depending), I can watch football games in about an hour and a half, and baseball games in an hour =).

The play's whistled dead, and boom, they're right back on the line of scrimmage about to snap. Or, pitch, pitch, pitch, pitch - takes 30 seconds to see 6 pitches.

Am I a terrible sports watcher or what?

I do this whenever possible. The rub is that I get a lot of enjoyment from following and participating in social media in real time - especially on DBR. That's something I sacrifice when I am Tivo time lagging - you also have to have the cell phone out of the room lest you start getting spolier texts.

TruBlu
06-09-2015, 05:57 PM
'Back in the day', one of the FIBA rules was to let a team that was fouled decide whether to shoot the free throws or take the ball out of bounds (sorry, can't remember if it was during the last two minutes or any other restrictions). So if you had a great shooter get hacked, you might put him on the line. If the player who got fouled was Tristan Thompson, you definitely took the ball. I wasn't a big fan of FIBA at the time, but that was one rule that I did like. I've also come to appreciate FIBA's 24 second shot clock. People get concerned about how that effects the pace of the game, but good coaches find ways to adapt (and then all the other coaches copy them!).


The NCAA tried this on an experimental basis in the early-season tournaments a while back (I want to say 1999 or 2000). It was a disaster. Teams didn't stop fouling, even when the opposing team took the ball out of bounds. In fact, the trailing team fouled more frequently and harder, because now the only way to get possession back was to try to force a steal. The endgames actually became longer and uglier. The NCAA abandoned the rule change after that experimental period, and hasn't looked back at it since then.

A solution might be to award two free throws, or 1 free throw and the ball out of bounds (at the offended teams decision).

And re-institute the "Intentional Foul", at least in the final minutes of a game, when the whole world knows (even if some will not admit it) that a team is fouling merely to stop the clock.

brevity
06-09-2015, 06:20 PM
The rub is that I get a lot of enjoyment from following and participating in social media in real time - especially on DBR.

There's the rub. If you spend those timeouts and delays on DBR chat, you stop caring how long the game takes. Also, alcohol.

jacone21
06-09-2015, 06:38 PM
There's the rub. If you spend those timeouts and delays on DBR chat, you stop caring how long the game takes. Also, alcohol.

Exactly! Plus, in chat, you get the stress relieving benefits of brevity's levity.

House P
06-09-2015, 07:50 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to take away the strategy of stopping the clock that allows a team that is behind to potentially mount a comeback and win the game. It's part of the game.

The strategy fails when the team that is leading makes free throws. The responsibility for that lies on the team. If they can't make free throws, maybe they deserve to lose. It makes no sense to change a rule because players are not skilled enough to make a free throw.


For me, the problem isn't a few foul shots at the end of a close game. I have more of a problem with the amount of time the “foul/substitute after every free throw/time out/official review/foul again/replace player who fouled out” process takes- especially when a game isn't really that close. I’d like to see some way of giving the trailing team a reasonable chance of making a comeback via free throws, while minimizing the chance that that final 4 minutes of game time will take 30 minutes of “real world” time. Ohio St-Indiana-Jan 2015 (http://rushthecourt.net/2015/01/16/fixing-college-basketball-on-pace-of-play-and-end-of-game-scenarios/)

A few things that might help without changing free throw rules.

- Reduce the time allowed to replace a player who has fouled out. I don’t understand why a player fouling out warrants an "extra timeout”.

- Start the game promptly after a timeout or clock review. Allow enough time for a commercial break, then get the game started promptly.

- Free throw-related substitutions should only be allowed in the time between the foul and the first foul shot. Does anyone know why substitutions are only allowed between foul shots or after the final foul shot (if it is made)? Seems to me that this results in disallowing substitutions when there is already a break in the action, while creating breaks when wouldn't otherwise occur.

- No immediate timeouts by a team who just made a basket. This hurts the flow of the game, especially when the timeout is followed by a quick foul.

As for foul shots, I’d like to see an approach that allows some use of the “foul to extend the game” strategy, but within reason. I wonder what would happen if something like the following were adopted.

- In the final 2 minutes, a team with more than 9 team fouls is only allowed 2 more non-shooting, defensive fouls using current rules. On the 3rd such foul, the team that was fouled shoots two shots and has the option to run off the time remaining on the shot clock. (In the case that the runoff would result in less than 5 seconds remaining in the game, the game clock is set to 5 seconds to allow one more desperation shot).

This seems like it would allow some opportunity to create more possessions with fouling, but there would be a limit.

Another option might be to institute some form of clock runoff when a team trailing by more than one possession commits an "excessive" number of non-shooting defensive fouls at the end of the game.



I find that people's feelings about this particular strategy vary a lot depending on whether their team is behind or ahead at the time the strategy is initiated. If we're losing to UNC by 7 points with about two minutes left in the game, I sure as heck want to be able to employ the strategy.


I agree. On the other hand, there are few things worse than turning on ESPN at 8:55 to watch a 9:00 Duke game, only to find out that they are showing a 7 point Big Ten game with 2 minutes left. There is little chance anything worth watching will happen, yet you can pretty much plan on not joining the Duke game until well after the first media timeout.


My nightmare scenario would be for some coach to decide that the best chance to come back from a double digit deficit is to start intentionally fouling with 5 minutes left. With enough walk-ons to commit the fouls, this might be sound strategy, yet it would be almost unwatchable aside from the novelty value the first time it happens.

bedeviled
06-09-2015, 08:33 PM
Theoretically, I'm in favor of a new category of "deliberate" foul. BUT, I think this concept disappeared because it was deemed impossible/unfair for officials to determine a player's true intent. There would be too much judgment and feigning in such calls. And, the subjectivity and frequency with which such calls would have to be made would lead to lots of potential complaining about officiating


Last two minutes of the game, make any foul in the backcourt be a three shot foul. This will make teams either play tough defense or wait until the ball gets across half court, which gets some time run off the clock. Alternatively, make it any foul outside the 3 pt line.
Oooh, this one gets my vote!! My version would be: 3 freethrows are awarded for any foul outside of the 3-pt line that results in shots (ie shooting fouls and non-shooting fouls once a team is 'in the bonus.') It is simple, straightforward, and does not involve judgment calls, different rules at different times of the game, etc. And, its holistic: 3-pt area is exactly what it says.


Start the game promptly after a timeout or clock review. Allow enough time for a commercial break, then get the game started promptlyIt has bugged me that the officials
blow the whistle to tell the teams to stop huddling up
wait as the teams continue to do whatever they want
blow the whistle again to say, "no, I'm really serious this time"
wait for the defenders, who usually get onto the court first so they're prepared
wait for the offense to get set (and the guy inbounding the ball always walks lazily into position :mad:)
wait for the defenders to adjust their positions based on the offensive set
check to make sure both teams and the other officials are really ready now
blow the whistle again to
start the game.

The timeout HAS a defined time limit. Just allow that specific time limit and start! I think it would be grand if the official blows his whistle and the game begins as it is supposed to:
- if the offense isn't ready, they risk having the 5-second inbound time limit run out
- if the defense isn't ready, the offense simply advances the ball as it pleases

TexHawk
06-09-2015, 11:11 PM
Unless your coach is savvily exploiting that rule to give a team with a short bench an extended break. Then it's a lot less aggravating.

Oh, of course I love it when Bill Self does it. Towards the end of 2014, that was the only time Andrew Wiggins ever came out of the game.

It's just annoying when I'm watching the other 350 teams.

Turk
06-10-2015, 10:14 AM
For me, the problem isn't a few foul shots at the end of a close game. I have more of a problem with the amount of time the “foul/substitute after every free throw/time out/official review/foul again/replace player who fouled out” process takes- especially when a game isn't really that close. I’d like to see some way of giving the trailing team a reasonable chance of making a comeback via free throws, while minimizing the chance that that final 4 minutes of game time will take 30 minutes of “real world” time. Ohio St-Indiana-Jan 2015 (http://rushthecourt.net/2015/01/16/fixing-college-basketball-on-pace-of-play-and-end-of-game-scenarios/)

A few things that might help without changing free throw rules.

- Reduce the time allowed to replace a player who has fouled out. I don’t understand why a player fouling out warrants an "extra timeout”.

- Start the game promptly after a timeout or clock review. Allow enough time for a commercial break, then get the game started promptly.

- Free throw-related substitutions should only be allowed in the time between the foul and the first foul shot. Does anyone know why substitutions are only allowed between foul shots or after the final foul shot (if it is made)? Seems to me that this results in disallowing substitutions when there is already a break in the action, while creating breaks when wouldn't otherwise occur.

- No immediate timeouts by a team who just made a basket. This hurts the flow of the game, especially when the timeout is followed by a quick foul.



Interesting ideas; a few comments:

Fouling out: I agree this is annoyance, but I'm not sure this happens often enough to make a meaningful difference. Someone can look up how often someone fouls out in the course of a game, but I will guess and say it's about 1 out of 3. Of course, in those types of rock-fight games, multiple people will foul out, so that's where the problem is the worst. I will make another hypothesis that in games where at least one person fouls out, in half of those games one or more other players will also foul out. Perhaps someone with a bit of free time can go play around with the stats and see what the real distribution is.

Restarting the game: Unfortunately, this is where the TV overlords call all the shots. Next time you go watch a game in person, observe how many times the teams come right out onto the floor when the horn sounds. Again, a significant percentage of the time, there's no trouble. And if you go to an NCAA tourney game, it's even worse. The TV timeouts are extended from 2 minutes to 3 minutes, so the teams are often standing out on the floor ready to play, and just waiting for the cue from the TV guy before the ref will let the player inbound the ball. (The TV guy is pretty easy to spot - he usually is wearing something neon like a highway safety vest and a big pair of headphones). Again, a minor annoyance but I don't think this would save a lot of time.

Free throws: Time for a bit of history. Free throw substitutions actually used to be a lot worse way back in the day. You used to be able to run subs in any time before the free throw shooter had the ball in his hands. I remember through the distant mists of time that this was another of Dean Smith's less well-known "innovations", God rest his soul. Example: Foul called, team A inserts subs. Free throw 1 happens. Team B then inserts subs to counter Team A's moves, or Team A inserts another sub because Team B is on the line and Team A is trying to ice the shooter a little. Then Free throw 2 happens. That was painful. You could imagine all the screaming today if that kind of nonsense happened with so many more games on TV. I'm guessing this got cleaned up around the first few years in the '80s when the shot clock and 3 point line went in and they were tinkering a bit to get it right (e.g. change from 45 second to 35 second clock).

So for many years now, the only people who can check in when free throws will take place must already be at the table. Anyone else who wants to check in after the foul is called can only do so once (before Shot 1 for 1-and-1 fouls, Shot 2 for regular shooting fouls, or Shot 3 for 3-point fouls). The only sub that can be made after the last free throw is for the shooter, no one else. That all seems pretty reasonable to me - not a whole lot of room for improvement there.

No timeouts by scoring team: Philosophically, I like it. It's similar to international rules where timeouts can only be called during certain stoppages of play. That will never get past the coaches, though. They'll still want to set their defense when trying to press / steal / foul.

House P
06-12-2015, 10:25 AM
Restarting the game: Unfortunately, this is where the TV overlords call all the shots. Next time you go watch a game in person, observe how many times the teams come right out onto the floor when the horn sounds …. waiting for the cue from the TV guy before the ref will let the player inbound the ball. (The TV guy is pretty easy to spot - he usually is wearing something neon like a highway safety vest and a big pair of headphones).

Interesting. I’ve always blamed the refs for the lollygagging, but now I can blame the TV folks. I could reluctantly accept this if the delay was used to generate more commercial revenue. But I wonder how many of these delays result in nothing more than another opportunity for home viewers to watch Dick Vitale spew "analysis" as he puts his arm around a visibly uncomfortable Dan Shulman.



Free throws: Time for a bit of history. Free throw substitutions actually used to be a lot worse way back in the day. You used to be able to run subs in any time before the free throw shooter had the ball in his hands. I remember through the distant mists of time that this was another of Dean Smith's less well-known "innovations", God rest his soul.

Thanks for the historical perspective. Dean Smith engaging in petty gamesmanship which results in a less enjoyable product? I’m shocked! :)




The only sub that can be made after the last free throw is for the shooter, no one else.

I am not trying to be disagreeable, but are you sure this is the current rule? I wasn’t sure myself, so I looked at the rulebook. Rule 3:Article 2b seems most relevant.


“During multiple free throws for personal fouls, a substitute may enter the game only before the final attempt in the sequence unless otherwise authorized by the rules or after the final attempt has been successfully converted.”

I am not sure how to interpret this, so I looked for relevant clips. I found the following video of this year’s KU-WVU game.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yrQ6Yw-SrE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yrQ6Yw-SrE)

With 11.5 seconds left in the game (timestamp 1:40:20 in the video), Devonte Graham from KU makes the second of two free throws. The whistle blows and it appears that Kansas makes at least one substitution, but Graham stays in the game. The substitution (which could have occurred before the free throw) seems primarily intended to allow Kansas to set up their defense. The substitution doesn’t take much time, but does interrupt the game flow.

That being said, it took me about 30 minutes of searching multiple NCAA games on youtube to find one such a substitution. So this practice may not be that big of an issue after all. I mostly searched Duke games and apparently Coach K doesn't do this often. I bet pressing teams with deep benches do this more often than other teams.



By the way, the linked KU-WVU video is good example of a potentially exciting game which grinds to a painfully slow finish. The final 1:08 of regulation took 8.5 minutes of real time and the 5 minute overtime period took 22 minutes of real time. I’m sure that most diehard KU/WVU fans were riveted, but I suspect many casual fans grew bored and changed the channel.

Turk
06-12-2015, 04:48 PM
I am not trying to be disagreeable, but are you sure this is the current rule? I wasn’t sure myself, so I looked at the rulebook. Rule 3:Article 2b seems most relevant.


“During multiple free throws for personal fouls, a substitute may enter the game only before the final attempt in the sequence unless otherwise authorized by the rules or after the final attempt has been successfully converted.”

I am not sure how to interpret this, so I looked for relevant clips. I found the following video of this year’s KU-WVU game.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yrQ6Yw-SrE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yrQ6Yw-SrE)

With 11.5 seconds left in the game (timestamp 1:40:20 in the video), Devonte Graham from KU makes the second of two free throws. The whistle blows and it appears that Kansas makes at least one substitution, but Graham stays in the game. The substitution (which could have occurred before the free throw) seems primarily intended to allow Kansas to set up their defense. The substitution doesn’t take much time, but does interrupt the game flow.

That being said, it took me about 30 minutes of searching multiple NCAA games on youtube to find one such a substitution. So this practice may not be that big of an issue after all. I mostly searched Duke games and apparently Coach K doesn't do this often. I bet pressing teams with deep benches do this more often than other teams.

By the way, the linked KU-WVU video is good example of a potentially exciting game which grinds to a painfully slow finish. The final 1:08 of regulation took 8.5 minutes of real time and the 5 minute overtime period took 22 minutes of real time. I’m sure that most diehard KU/WVU fans were riveted, but I suspect many casual fans grew bored and changed the channel.

(Feel free to be disagreeable whenever you want, especially if I'm wrong.) And in this case, it looks like I am. I've been coaching the kids for years now at a variety of levels, and never saw a sub after the last shot for anyone except for the shooter, so I thought that was the rule. So now I have two theories: 1) this is a rule difference between NCAA and NHSF, and or more likely 2) if a coach wants a player in the game at the grade school / high school level, the kid doesn't do the team any good sitting next to the table when the last free throw is missed.