Are you aware of WHO actually write the rules? It's the coaches. They make the rules, that we enforce, that they complain about.

Officials arguing and discussing what rules would make the game better is pointless since officials DON'T write the rules. It's not our job. We have very little riding on any contest. Therefor our opinions don't matter, nor should they.

Couple of points here-- EVERYTHING on his board is pointless. That is why I like it. Second-- an integral part of my post and the discussion is calling intentional fouls.. that is us.

And if I may add a third meta-point-- not sure why people spend time or energy writing that someone should not have posted something. If you disagree with a point then, by all means, weigh in with your point of view. But to just spend the time and energy to tell someone their post wasnt worth making strikes me as a bit negative and needless. Why not just read on, and ignore posts that dont appeal. Why take the time to reply that someone elses post was not valid. Seems like the kind of personality that would do that is the same kind of personality type that complains about every call when they are a coach.

Are you talking NFHS or NCAA? In NFHS, there are 8 regions and I know for a fact that the region covering Oregon has always been staffed by an official when it was Oregon's turn on the committee. Not all regions or state necessarily follow that pattern, but there are officials on that committee.

Then why, so often, does that not seem like the case.

Not everything is pointless. I have learned a few things, as I am sure many others have. The video reviews are very helpful too.

Those alleging the game is "fine" are just fooling themselves. The game is not fine and has been going downhill for many years. The issues the OP raises, I raised here 10+ years ago. Too many on here have bought into the idiotic idea that committing rules infractions to gain an advantage is an acceptable part of any sport. Honestly, it is no wonder there is a college basketball recruiting scandal. Coaches know they can cheat on the floor and get away with it; why not do it in recruiting?

The first thing that needs to change is to eliminate the idea that stopping the clock by fouling is an acceptable strategy. Not only does this lead to the last 2 minutes taking forever, it guarantees coaches will foul as a strategy earlier so they don't have to "catch up" to get to the bonus. In other words, the first 10 fouls are basically free. So when you say fouling to stop the clock is acceptable, remember that you are saying fouling the entire game is acceptable. Go watch a football game where they throw 40 flags and tell me how enjoyable and well played that game was. But the system we're in now almost guarantees 40 fouls in most basketball games. 28 at the very least.

Yes, I know teams can help themselves by actually making free throws, but even that misses the point. Coaches are more than willing to trade 2 made free throws by the other team for multiple attempts at a 3 point shot. If they've got a couple of good outside shooters, all the better. So the rules inherently give the team breaking those rules an advantage -- at least in some cases. In what other sport does that exist? What's bizarre is that in the first half, the coach will complain that you called a foul on his player; then late in the game when they're behind, he WANTS you to call a foul to stop the clock when there was even less contact. Everyone on here has experienced that situation. This alone should tell you there is a problem.

My starting proposal for years has been very simple: allow, either during the entire game or at least the last 2 minutes of each half, the ability of a coach to "decline" the penalty (i.e. free throws) for a foul and accept the ball out of bounds. This makes stopping the clock much less attractive since it gives the offense 10 additional seconds in the backcourt if needed every time there is a throw in. If a team can make their free throws and defend the 3, they accept the penalty and shoot when there is a foul. But I would argue that this concept would significantly decrease overall fouling.

The next idea is to eliminate the 1-and-1, shoot 2 shots at either 5 or 7 fouls, and shoot 3 at 10. This takes care of the 2 free throws/3 point shot attempt problem, and is consistent with the above idea.

Excessive contact has ruined the game and the reason officials often don't call it as they should is because they don't want to endure a 50 foul game. You can't blame them for that, but the main problem is that coaches, for some idiotic reason, are fine with allowing the other team to "cheat" as long as they can "cheat." In other words, they want the ability to stop the clock late in the game by fouling even if that gives the other team the same ability.

In what other competition is committing a rules infraction an "acceptable strategy?"

No advantage is given in your scenario unless they want to get it. If the leading team is confident they can make their free throws they can then foul the team behind before they get up a 3 point shot. If they really think the opponents are that great of 3 point shooter. Or they could play appropriate defense and deny they 3 points causing the opponents to only score 2 while running time off.

This rule does not need changed. They arguments are always the same. The game takes to long, its boring, bla bla bla. What they are really saying is we want athleticism to trump basketball skills. i.e. Deandre Jordan.

Yawn. The debate on this goes back way farther than that. Long ago it was 1 FT for a foul (after the limit?), so fouling was a major strategy.

How much intentional fouls in the lagging moments are enforced as such has gone back and forth like a pendulum. Double bonus was created to make fouling a less effective strategy. The shot clock reduces it as a strategy.

But the reality is it is part of the game and par to of the ethos of the game. And I think the reality is that most basketball fans enjoy it as part of the game--so long as it is not extreme (e.g., Hack-a-Shaq type off ball fouls not in the final minute or the deliberate fouling that continues when there is no chance of a comeback).

Getting worse? I think not. I played back in the 80s (before double bonus). I don't see any more intentional fouling in my son's HS games than back in the games I played--indeed, I think there is less, as the shot clock (CA) means that they can play defense at times where we could only steal or foul.

But I do think (in many games) officials are too reluctant to call the intentional foul when there is no play on the ball. IMHO the grab of the waist of the player from behind should be called intentional--but only if it is clearly communicated to teams that it will be.

Why post about people who think a thread is pointless? Isn't that a waste of time? Why not just read past the posts that are "negative" instead of wasting time by posting about the negative posts?

P.S.: Every one who posts here calls intentional fouls.

Is there a class of Hyperbole and Non-sequitur 101 going on that I need to attend? :rolleyes:

This is laughable hyperbole.

IMO, the only credence to any of this "sky is falling" because of end of game fouls is another argument for more states to adopt shot clocks.

All of the rest is poor solutions looking for a problem.

you wasted your time posting about my posts that posts about wasting time.

OK, that is one region and still, the vast majority of people involved are not active, working officials. They are usually administrators or coaches that are on those committees.

Peace

What do you mean "good basketball?" You realize that fouls are apart of the game, so much so that everyone gets 5 of them before they cannot play. So that is apart of the game. There are players that play so they can be physical with a certain player and get fouls as a strategy. If fouls were not apart of the game, then they would say any contact would be a disqualification from the contest.

Peace

Again, they get 5 of them. Just like it is a strategy in other sports to not pitch to a particular batter, to foul instead of giving up a large gain and foul near the end of the game. All things done in the games I mentioned that you can take advantage of if you make the next play. Hit FTs and your strategy does not work. ;)

Peace