dump the free throw
 

Hi, I'm not an official, just a fan who enjoys watching basketball on TV. I have a question.

Why, exactly, does basketball need the free throw? Ok, allegedly it penalizes fouls. Fair enough. It also stops the game, is uninteresting, exaggerates the importance of a modest skill, makes close games tedious or even painful to watch at the end, and enables the absurd "hacka" strategy that has been criticized by so many fans and commentators. Why not just get rid of it?

What is so all-fired exciting, or even interesting, about stopping the game while 6 guys line up in parade formation and one of them takes a shot that most experienced players make with ease? It is a 19th century relic that was never intended to dominate the game, as it so often does now.

Ok, you will ask, Ron, what will you do instead to penalize fouls? I have a modest proposal, borrowing a very intelligent idea from hockey.

After a foul is whistled, the offending player takes any position he wants in the back court. He must remain there until the ball repasses the center stripe. This is, in effect, a penalty box, and the defense must play 4 v 5 until the possession changes. Just whistle the foul, remove the player from the front court, inbound the ball, and play on. Simple and effective.

-- Ron K.

I am going to assume that they wanted a way to gain points by penalizing a foul action or it would continue to take place to prevent constant contact. I just believe it is a way to not allow a balance between the offense and the defense.

That is all I got. :D

Peace

Coaches, ADs, and commissionsers make the rules, we just enforce them.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Your proposal would negatively affect the defense, as they would be less aggressive as to prevent a 5 on 4 disadvantage. I know... same goes for hockey. However, a foul in hockey that leads to a 5 on 4 disadvantage is much more egregious than most fouls in basketball (aka "less common"). And while watching teams score is fun and all, plenty of people love to see good defensive play (they are still replaying LeBron's block in Game 7 of last year's NBA Finals). And like it or not, defense is a part of the game.

Field goals can be boring, but they are part of football. Icing is not a part of international hockey, but is a part of the NHL, although it can be boring to stop play for another face-off. Having to sit through four pitches meant to intentionally walk a batter is boring, but that's a part of baseball, and there have been times when things happen during those four pitches.

I understand that free throws are not exciting, but it's hardly a big deal. Certainly not one big enough to warrant such a drastic change.

Your proposal can give the fouling team a big advantage if they then force a turnover whilst playing 4-5. It's an easy long pass for a basket to the cherry-picker.

If you want to implement this, have the player stand behind the defensive end-line until some particular action happens.

5 on 4 works in hockey because its rare as Bryan said and, more importantly IMO, there is a goalie in front of a net that sits on the ice. And they play on ICE. Scoring is still hard. 5 on 4 in basketball wouldn't be the same as hockey. Wide open easy shot whenever u wanted in basketball. If you don't like FTs I'd say just do it like summer ball, after so many, give them a point and move on.

Frankly, as you have said, FTs have been part of the game forever. They have stood the test of time. I'm not saying this to be mean to you but I care more about the game and the players who play it than I do you or any other fan. FTs are basketball. Fundamental. If Shaq could make FTs we wouldn't have hack a SHaq. To be a 90 plus percent free throw shooter takes effort. A lot of it. It isn't easy. I know the player who does it shoots 500 a day at least. I respect that. Not exciting but I know what it takes to be really good at it.

Set The Flux Capacitor To December, 1891 ...
 

Not true. In Dr. Naismith’s Original Thirteen Rules Of Basketball there were "power plays":

Rule 5. No shouldering, holding, pushing, tripping, or striking in any way the person of an opponent shall be
allowed; the first infringement of this rule by any player shall count as a foul, the second shall disqualify
him until the next goal is made, or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game,
no substitute allowed.

Ask Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. He was actually there at the time.

Ok. Almost forever. I'm sure u were there too. Probably nappin.😼

I wouldn't mind shooting one freethrow for all the points to speed up play.

The fall league my son plays in sort of does this until the last two minutes of the game. Their rules are:
-foul on a shot that goes in, just add the point
-for other FT scenarios, it's one FT to get both points
It's a great rule when the point of the games is experience and its a running clock.

Are games really so long that we need to find ways to speed them up by dumping the free throws? :confused:

When players can no longer make free throws, coaches will remove them from the game.

How about 3 seconds closely guarded or holding the ball?

How about giving them a choice not to shoot Free throws and just get the ball out of bounds? And only adding 5 more seconds to the shot clock rather then resetting it? This hack a shack is stupid. Foul a guy involved with the play and actual fouls. Its a disgrace to the NBA to allow someone not involved with a play to go to the line. Just to put a guy on the line.

Remove the players, or the free throws? :D

For about the last 15 years, yeah.

Free throws are obsolete or they are becoming that way. The problem with the free throw is that coaches don't bother with it with their team and it ceases to be a penalty when it isn't made. There needs to be a deterrent to fouling. I've suggested for many years that, like in football, a team should be able to "decline" the free throw penalty and keep possession of the ball. This would all but eliminate fouling at the end of the game. If it didn't you could add a 5 second runoff for fouls committed by the team not in possession in the last minute -- possibly limiting a runoff to fouls that occur in the backcourt. THAT would eliminate fouling to stop the clock.

I would also eliminate the 1 and 1 and go to 2 shots at 7 fouls (or less) and 3 shots at 10 fouls. A team that can shoot 3's AND foul while on defense has a huge advantage over a team that can only shoot 2 free throws.

I believe FIBS used to allow teams to decline freer throws many years ago.

While I think the NBA needs an intentional foul rule akin to HS and NCAA to get rid of the really silly off the ball fouls, I don't think there is a problem in general. There have been efforts to make more fouls intentional (2 plus th ball), but the game reverts back. Contrary to your view, it seems that the overwhelming majority of folk see fouls at the end of the game as part of the drama of the game. (And in watching my son play HS games, I don't see the fouling at the end of the game as any different from how it was when I played 30
years ago.)

I'd be in favor of the old 3-to-make-2 in end of game situations to discourage teams who are down 10+ points from just postponing the inevitable.

Down 1 with 5 seconds left...fouling is a reasonable strategy. Down 10 with 30 seconds left...please spare us.

That has not been my experience. Averaging around an hour and a half just isn't that long at the high school level.

I'm not talking about nor do I care about college or NBA for this discussion and that's not where my question was directed.