PDA

View Full Version : Time to consider six fouls instead of five?



BlueDevilJay
03-24-2008, 09:56 AM
On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 10:38 AM
On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.

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

weezie
03-24-2008, 12:31 PM
Apologies if this has been previously posted but did anyone hear D. Patrick talking about Vitale's comment that it may be time to consider increasing the college fouls to six? The big man's game is becoming hampered by the five, as the game has become faster.
Any thoughts? I think it's a good idea but I suspect many do not. The second part of Vitale's argument was no fouling out, instead two shots and the ball, which sounds much more difficult to argue.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 12:43 PM
I think 5 fouls is perfect. It requires smart play and smart coaching, with consequences for bad judgement. As for the idea of never fouling out, that's an even worse idea. There is no jeopardy in it, so you can leave your best players in the whole game. The last 2 minutes of any game will be even more of a foul fest than they already are.

Jumbo
03-24-2008, 12:45 PM
It's actually being discussed in another thread. I'll merge the two.

weezie
03-24-2008, 12:57 PM
I think 5 fouls is perfect. It requires smart play and smart coaching, with consequences for bad judgement. As for the idea of never fouling out, that's an even worse idea. There is no jeopardy in it, so you can leave your best players in the whole game. The last 2 minutes of any game will be even more of a foul fest than they already are.

But, do you agree that the 6 are ok for the pro game? Is it because of the game being longer? I just feel big men are more often penalized that faster, smaller players and not just because of the overall nature of the game. They are slower moving targets.
I agree that the never fouling out is lame.

CameronBornAndBred
03-24-2008, 01:04 PM
But, do you agree that the 6 are ok for the pro game? Is it because of the game being longer? I just feel big men are more often penalized that faster, smaller players and not just because of the overall nature of the game. They are slower moving targets.
I agree that the never fouling out is lame.

I think that if they actually called all the fouls that are committed, then 6 would be sufficient. I think they give them one or 2 extras anyways.
But I don't watch enough pro games to make a fair judgement, it's just not a style of basketball that I enjoy.

SMO
03-24-2008, 01:07 PM
He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out".

In soccer you can get tossed for two yellow cars or one red, and yellow cards can be issued for repeated violations of the rules. Often, more skilled teams create probems for the opposition by getting them in "card trouble" as opposed to foul trouble. Similarly, in hockey and lacrosse there are power plays where players are forced to temporarily sit out so to say removing players for fouls only occurs in basketball is incorrect. Sounds like Dick was just bummed to see Hibbert, a great college player, out of the game.

JasonEvans
03-24-2008, 01:47 PM
I think Vitale's idea of 2-shots and the ball for all fouls after 5 is a terrible one. It would really encourage thuggish play once a guy got to 5 fouls. Unless you were going to add some additional penalty for an intentional foul after a guy already has 5 (4 shots plus the ball?) then you are only saying "foul as hard as you want, it does not matter" which is really dangerous.

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

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

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

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

ForeverBlowingBubbles
03-24-2008, 02:07 PM
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I actually agree with Vitale ... to a point. Five fouls is not enough. When you pick up two fouls, which really isn't a big deal, you're in foul trouble. Everyone thinks that the ratio is equivalent to the NBA (5 fouls per 40 minutes, 6 per 48). It's not. You're really allowed four fouls in 40 minutes (one per 10) vs. 5 in 48 (one per 9.6). There are way too many stars fouling out of way too many Tournament games. Keep in mind that these kids are allowed five fouls in high school, too -- playing 32-minute games. I would push for a combination of the Vitale Rule and the NBA rule. Your fifth foul counts as a technical, and you foul out on the sixth. Yeah, it would be a big change. But I think it would help the game. Thoughts?

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

A-Tex Devil
03-24-2008, 02:16 PM
Seems like the system could be gamed a bit. I'm all for adding a 6th foul, but making the 5th a technical really screws with the ability to foul at the end of games and put opponents on the line - a long time part of basketball no matter how tedious it can become. Did any our guys pick up their 5th in the last minute of the gone in 60 seconds game? I can't remember, but if they had, we lose.

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

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

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

DST Fan
03-25-2008, 08:56 AM
About 20 years ago, the Big East adopted a 6-foul rule for conference games. The rule lasted no more than a season or two. I was a Georgetown season ticket holder at the time, and my impression was that the style of play, particularly the post play, became more physical-- and the Big East was certainly not considered to be a soft league back then.

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

DrDrawz
03-25-2008, 01:42 PM
I've always thought they should at least give each player an extra foul to work with in overtime.

crimsonandblue
03-25-2008, 01:59 PM
If you have to change things, I'd prefer three fouls per half and maybe have one or up to two carryovers. And no one and one - just two shots.

Bluedawg
03-25-2008, 02:12 PM
On another note, did anyone see Dickie V complaining about Hibbert fouling out vs Davidson? He (and this is the first time I've EVER heard this) said that basketball is the only sport where a whistle can eliminate a player, and there should be a rule change to get rid of "fouling out". After 5 fouls, if said player commits another foul, it would be automatic 2 shots and the ball (similar to a technical) for the opposing team. I personally think thats ridiculous, does anyone else? Apparently he was miffed that his NC pick was leaving the tournament to an upstart #10 seed.

Please, why evern bother calling fouls then? You break the rules you have to pay the price. Sitting on the bench the rest of the game is the price. having to limit playing time is the price.

KyDevilinIL
03-25-2008, 02:26 PM
While we're making wild suggestions, what about not counting the foul against the defender when the fouled offensive player makes the field goal? If the whistle blows and the shot goes in, the offense still gets the points and the one free throw, but the defense obviously didn't gain enough of an advantage to prevent the FG. So why count the foul? The offensive team would get a free throw because there was enough contact to force a stoppage, but not enough to warrant a foul.

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

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

buddy
03-25-2008, 05:34 PM
Five fouls in 40 minutes is one every 8 minutes. 6 fouls in 48 minutes (NBA) is one foul every 8 minutes. So there seems to be some symmetry between the two sets of rules. I think college basketball is becoming too rough as it is. There is more of a premium on athleticism than skill. Permitting additional fouls will not cut down on the physical play, and will not encourage skill over athleticism. JMO. Do we really want Deron Washington to have an extra chance to whack one of our guys?

DST Fan
03-25-2008, 06:15 PM
I posted this on another thread this morning:


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

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

brevity
03-25-2008, 06:38 PM
Dick Vitale can get kind of emotional, if you haven't noticed, and he probably was just upset that Roy Hibbert was ending his career stuck on the bench. I suppose that is a bummer, but seniors foul out of NCAA tournament games every year.

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

NovaScotian
03-25-2008, 07:07 PM
imo five fouls is enough, and we absolutley should have a hard cap. what's insane to me is that you dont get an extra foul for each overtime. thats total crap.

trickshot
03-25-2008, 07:53 PM
3 things and I want elaborate too much:

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

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

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

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

moonpie23
03-25-2008, 08:59 PM
5th foul - 2 minutes on the bench. after that, 3 mins on the bench for each foul,AND the fouled team gets shots AND the ball...


that might make it interesting....

moonpie23
03-25-2008, 09:00 PM
and while we're talking about rules.....could someone PUHLLLLEEEEZZZEEE nix that irritating alternating possession arrow rule>???? PUHLLLLEEEEEZZEE??

loran16
03-25-2008, 09:02 PM
Hmmm, the NBA has 6 fouls for 48 minutes.

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

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

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

dukemsu
03-25-2008, 09:29 PM
I think the idea has merit. Too many coaches think "strategy" is to simply run every play at one guy they can't guard and try to get him out of the game. It is part of the continuing problem that basketball has in terms of having any consistent flow and creativity.

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

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

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

DrDrawz
03-25-2008, 10:32 PM
I posted this on another thread this morning:


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

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

They call fouls in the Big East? ;)


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

weezie
03-25-2008, 11:38 PM
and while we're talking about rules.....could someone PUHLLLLEEEEZZZEEE nix that irritating alternating possession arrow rule>???? PUHLLLLEEEEEZZEE??


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

Atldukie79
03-25-2008, 11:39 PM
Jump Balls - As much as I also dislike the alternating possession arrow, I am still in favor of it because:
1) I see no reason to inherently reward a taller/better jumper when there is a tie up between 2 players.
2) The refs have proven to have no skill(that's why they aren't players:) )at tossing the ball straight and high. How many times do the players seem to catch it on the way up? How often is the ball off center? Why have a play influenced by a ref's skill rather when he is there for his judgment?

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

AARRGH...enough math for one night.

gep
03-26-2008, 12:20 AM
Jump Balls - As much as I also dislike the alternating possession arrow, I am still in favor of it because:
1) I see no reason to inherently reward a taller/better jumper when there is a tie up between 2 players.
2) The refs have proven to have no skill(that's why they aren't players:) )at tossing the ball straight and high. How many times do the players seem to catch it on the way up? How often is the ball off center? Why have a play influenced by a ref's skill rather when he is there for his judgment?

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

A-Tex Devil
03-26-2008, 01:43 AM
Hmmm, the NBA has 6 fouls for 48 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lulu
03-26-2008, 02:58 AM
Maybe 5 fouls would be enough if officials were perfect, but they're not. A couple tight or questionable calls on one player and a couple loose or no-calls on another seriously affects those players and teams. I've joked with friends that I'd like to see the hockey system in place at times. It's not like soccer where you've got twice as many players out there; 1 of 5 is huge. And furthermore, in other sports I think it generally requires a little more intent to "foul".

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

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

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

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

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

Ima Facultiwyfe
03-26-2008, 09:30 AM
I'd REALLY like to see the intentional foul called on all fouls that are actually intentional.

AMEN!!!!
Love, Ima

Indoor66
03-26-2008, 09:57 AM
After just a couple early fouls players have to really start changing how they play the game, and they cannot play the same game they otherwise would, especially on D. This is probably what bothers me most. The level of play shouldn't be "hindered" by fouls, especially when most fouls are in fact accidental in this game. This aspect of the penalty goes far beyond the foul shots awarded if you ask me. I'd like to see all athletes out there competing at full strength, not at various levels of competitiveness due to everyone's foul situation.

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

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

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

Wander
03-26-2008, 10:13 AM
Two people have made this point -- it's not really correct. Or at the very least, there are 2 different ways of looking at it. Jumbo is right, you get 5 fouls in 48 minutes in the NBA, 4 fouls in college. The 5th and the 6th, respectively, and you are out.



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

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

wilko
03-26-2008, 01:00 PM
Adding a foul back in an OT session... just like the extra time out.
That could be fun.


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

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

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

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

Lulu
03-27-2008, 01:01 AM
I agree that the intentional foul should be an intentional foul, whether in the first or last minute of the game.

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

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

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

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