A propsed rule change in Basketball.

[Bulldog Bruce]

Watching some games this weekend confirmed that I think any foul beyond the 3 point line, that results as a shooting foul, should result in 3 foul shots.

Both our game and the Memphis/Tenn game came down to a 3 point shot at the end. The announcers in our game talked about fouling our player, but we just happened to run a great play that they could not foul the man with the ball prior to the Hansbrough shot. In the Memphis game when they were down 3, Tenn fouled the player prior to any shots.

There should NOT be a built in advantage to fouling. Right now you can trade 2 for 3. If they made it 3 shots and/or 1+1+1, the one point advantage would be wiped out so you don't have the automatic fouling at the end of the game.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Watching some games this weekend confirmed that I think any foul beyond the 3 point line, that results as a shooting foul, should result in 3 foul shots.

Both our game and the Memphis/Tenn game came down to a 3 point shot at the end. The announcers in our game talked about fouling our player, but we just happened to run a great play that they could not foul the man with the ball prior to the Hansbrough shot. In the Memphis game when they were down 3, Tenn fouled the player prior to any shots.

There should NOT be a built in advantage to fouling. Right now you can trade 2 for 3. If they made it 3 shots and/or 1+1+1, the one point advantage would be wiped out so you don't have the automatic fouling at the end of the game.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

[No message]

 

[RebelBruiser]

He's talking about fouls on the floor being 3 shots.

I can see the reasoning, but I disagree with the rule. If you're choosing to foul with a 3 point lead, you're essentially saying you think you can win a free throw shooting contest if it comes to it. I have no problem with it, and it's just a strategy that can be applied. If you're down 3, you have to know it's a possibility, and if you don't like it, don't get yourself in a position where you are down 3, needing a 3 to tie.

 

[PineGroveBully]

I think he is meaning like when teams foul at the end and have a 3 point lead. Instead of letting them get a 3 point shot off, simply foul them and just give them 2 foul shots. Not a bad idea but I dont think it would ever pass.

 

[Center Z]

if you're in the bonus and you get, say, a hand check foul beyond the arc.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

and that would be a dumb rule.

 

[patdog]

I agree Bruce. I would also like to see the International rule adopted where the team that got fouled would have the option of either taking the ball inbounds with a fresh shot clock or shooting free throws in the bonus and double bonus situation. As you said, there should be no built-in advantage for fouling. And while we're at it, I'd get rid of the double bonus to start with.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

Quote:_________________________________________________As you said, there should be no built-in advantage for fouling. And while we're at it, I'd get rid of the double bonus to start with. _________________________________________________

Eliminating the double bonus would put in a built in advantage for fouling. There already is an incentive to foul poor free throw shooters late in the game. If you take away the automatic second shot in the double bonus, there is even more incentive to foul a poor FT shooter.

 

[patdog]

In my system, you'd replace the double bonus with the option to inbounds the ball with a new shot clock instead of shooting FTs at all. You'd never send your poor FT shooter to the line.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

I think the more strategic options, the better. These suggested rule changes take away several available strategies and would water down the game. Free throw shooting is part of the game...especially late in the game. You gotta leave it alone.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

[No message]

 

[Uncle Leo]

Leave it alone.

I hate time-specific rules. Like the way the NFL changes things depending on how much time is left.

 

[patdog]

No. I reward teams that build a lead in a game. And I don't reward a team that intentionally fouls. If officials had the balls to call the existing intentional foul rule, teams wouldn't be pulling that **** to start with.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

As WMJ & OP4 stated, free throw shooting is part of the game. Allowing them to be eliminated swings the unfair advantage in the other direction. The team that is trailing by 1 or 2 with 34 seconds or less left has no chance at getting the ball back under your scenario. The team with the ball can just hold it until time runs out.

 

[patdog]

I'm not advocating time-specific rules, and I don't think Bruce is either. In my scenario, from the 7th foul on in each half, the team fouled would have the option to take the ball with a new shot clock or to shoot free throws. In his, as I understand it, from the 7th foul on in each half any foul outside the 3-point arc would result in a 1+1+1, and any foul after 10 would be a 3-shot foul.

 

[patdog]

Quote:_________________________________________________The team that is trailing by 1 or 2 with 34 seconds or less left has no chance at getting the ball back under your scenario. The team with the ball can just hold it until time runs out. _________________________________________________

And why should you reward the team with the deficit? You don't see an option for the defense in football to stop the clock (other than by using a time out) if they're down by 3 with 30 seconds to go.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

If the foul results in an in bound play, then that is fine.

The rule effectively now would be like if you said that fouls, not in the act of shooting, give one free throw.

The foul should result in the same possible points as could be scored from that point on the floor.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

Quote:_________________________________________________I reward teams that build a lead in a game._________________________________________________

If you truly have built up a lead, then random free throws at the end of the game shouldn't matter.

Quote:_________________________________________________If officials had the balls to call the existing intentional foul rule, teams wouldn't be pulling that **** to start with. _________________________________________________

Your changes would absolutely smother a team that's only behind three or four points at the end. Protecting a team with a small lead would be absolutely boring.

 

[bulldogcountry1]

big surpise there.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

Dude, if you're going to compare football with basketball, hang it up.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

six times, then they get fouled under their own basket, it's 1+1+1? That's just silly.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

is an apples to oranges comparison. Basketball scoring possesions rarely take a full 35 seconds. Also, scoring possessions occur moving the ball 94 feet. Football scoring possessions rarely occur in less than four minutes. Most scoring possesions require moving more than 31 yards. So 30 seconds in football is not equal to 30 seconds in basketball.

Furthermore, being able to foul is not rewarding the team with a deficit. Fouling can result in an easy uncontested free two points for the team with a lead. However, that is a chance that the losing team is willing to take as a part of strategy. It is easy to overcome this strategy by simply teaching players to hit 70% of their FTs. They are free shots however. I have not played basketball in years and I could still hit 70% after about 10 minutes of shooting again. I regularly shot 85% + in high school.

 

[ChatGPT]

I want a 24 second shot clock, four ten minute quarters, 5 foul bonus per quarter, a no charge circle, and an actual jump after a tie up.

 

[patdog]

We could argue about it all day and neither of us will change the others mind. I realize I'm in the minority, but I do think something should be done to eliminate situation where a team fouled loses the potential to score as many points from the foul as it would have to score from a shot. Protecting a small lead is kind of boring as it is now, becuase you know it's going to take 10 minutes to play the last minute of the game. And most of that 10 minutes is commercials and guys standing around.

 

[WillemWallace]

the team with the lead should be penalized for having that lead and using smart strategy to hopefully maintain that lead?

That doesn't make any sense....

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

why is there two foul shots for fouls now?

The reason is that the foul prevented the offense from scoring a basket, which historically was valued as two points. So the original rule makers thought the team should have the opportunity to score those two points with free shots worth one point each. The one caveat was dependent upon if the player was shooting or not. They decided if they were not shooting, they had to make the first one to get a chance at the second one. But they still had a chance to score as many points if there was no foul. They did not penalize the team being fouled by only letting them try to get one point less than would be possible with a successful shot from the floor.

Then the three point shot came along and someone realized that when you are making a shot attempt beyond the arc, you should get a chance to score the 3 points you were trying to get and they get 3 shots. Well when you are fouled beyond the arc, the same should hold true in that you should not be penalized for being fouled. You should have the opportunity to score the same amount as if a shot was attempted from that spot. 1+1+1.

Committing a penalty or foul should never give that team an automatic advantage. It is fine to foul someone in the hope that is it harder to make 2 or 3 shots to get your points than the one shot. It just shouldn't be automatically unbalanced.

 

[Stormrider81]

Quote:_________________________________________________an actual jump after a tie up_________________________________________________

I still cannot understand why that rule hasn't already been changed.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

but three free throws for getting fouled on your own half of the court is just dumb. It ain't hitting on nothing...

 

[patdog]

Two problems with having an actual jump ball after every tie-up:

1. You give no reward at all to a 6'2" guard who ties up a 6'11" center. He's gonna lose that jump every time.

2. I know this is hard to believe, but college officials used to suck at throwing the ball straight up for a fair jump.