Full disclosure, I coach more than I officiate. I am taken aback that fouling is considered cheating. Having been on all three sides of this issue-- calling the fouls, fouling from behind and being fouled while ahead-- I would never consider this strategy to be cheating. If a guy makes 75% of his free throws and I can't score without the ball-- it seems to make sense. And this has been going on since at least the 1970's and I know my 8U coach didn't invent it so I would guess even longer. And it does not make a travesty of the game. Up in the last minute you have to teach your players to move the ball, and keep it in the right player's hands. Down, you have to measure risk and reward. And as has been said you need to make your FTs. I always have my kids tell the ref we are going to foul. I did this because I see a kid almost hurt another kid trying to get the ref to blow his whistle. Sometimes players tell me but I usually know what is up. I love this part of the game.

Two words: Shot clock. I have experience with both shot clock (DC Public School basketball/WCAC Girls basketball) and non-shot clock (college intramural, MD middle school, recreational basketball games), and have noticed that there is less end-of-game fouling in shot clock games than in non-shot clock games. This removes the guesswork of having to decide which fouls are called intentional fouls (by rule, all end of game fouls could be called intentional, because they are usually done to stop the clock instead of to play the ball) and which fouls are called common fouls, and improves player safety, by not having players becoming subject to fouls for strategic reasons, and retaliating after said foul.

Perhaps this is because teams can afford to actually play defense until the game clock goes under 30 seconds (or 35 for those states/leagues where that is the standard time). Teams are actually at a disadvantage when they foul before 30 seconds remain in the game, because a foul will reset the shot clock, and give the offended team an additional possession (HS with shot clock, NCAA Women's, (W)NBA, FIBA), prolong their possession (NCAA Men's for fouls without free throws), or allow them to retain possession for the rest of the game, if the foul happens with less than the appropriate shot clock period.

Just a hint: when a thread title is quixotic as "fixing basketball" you may want to use your common sense and know without even opening it that it isnt about nuts and bolts "officiating". Maybe just dont bother opening it?? Its not like it was bait and switch-- where I led with a title of "is this traveling" then when I got you to open the thread I dropped a philosophical discussion on the nature and direction of the game. Comments like yours are much akin the the coach sitting on the bench whining about every call!!!

I completely disagree--- But I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned defense of the current system. You present an eloquent argument.

I previously coached and I never told my kids to foul at the end of the game. My instructions were to go for that steal and if they get called for the foul then so be it.

I do not understand how a coach can have their players give up an opportunity to get the ball back.

Intentionally fouling is not good coaching.

Agree. I'm always shocked at home many just foul to foul without actually trying to get the ball with increased aggressiveness. You might just get the ball without a foul if you try.

None of those sports award a score. They put the team in a spot to make the score more likely. That is what a FT does. That is what an at-the-spot or 15 yard penalty does. That is what awarding the next base does. They're all doing the same thing. Football doesn't award the touchdown, ever. In college, with it being a 15 yard penalty (and, IIRC, the NFL is considering a change to match), even on an obvious score (absent the penalty), they still don't award the score. The player still has to catch the ball and, even with the best, that isn't 100% certain.

Also, NO layup is sure. I had a top team in the state lose a game this year missing a laying with less than 5 seconds to go that would have put them ahead.

And post like yours are much like an official who comes to the gym to be the center of attention instead of officiating the game.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The Ingenious Nobleman Sir Quixote Of La Mancha ...
 

I thought the same thing.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...ve-d7a57y2.jpg

Not true.

Baseball and softball umpires can award more than one base, if it's deemed appropriate given the situation when the obstruction occurs, up to and including home plate. It happened in the World Series a few years back: runner on 3rd was obstructed by the third baseman after an errant throw to 3rd.

In football, there's the "unfair act" provision (FED and NCAA, at least, not sure about NFL) that allows the Referee to award a score... it's almost never used, but it's there. About the only scenario where I think it would be appropriate to do so is if a non-player comes off the sideline and tackles a ballcarrier who has a clear path to the end zone and no opponent with any possibility of making a tackle.

Wait-- wait-- you are back hanging out in a thread you have already said has no value-- why waste your time!

And just so you konw-- I am just the opposite. My goals officiating a game are, in order:
1) keep game safe
2) making sure my pants dont fall down
3) keep game fair
4) not be noticed.
5) get a red gatorade at halftime, in the good gyms at least, where they take care of the officials.

They award a base that might result in a score, but they do not have a penalty that awards a score all by itself.

Also, the provision of the unfair act is extremely rare and usually requires someone almost someone coming off the bench to make a tackle to happen. Yes, it has happened in a game, but not any that I can think of in the last 30 years.

Peace

They are still not awarding a score. They're awarding a base. That base, in a few cases might be home base because there is nothing else to award that would mean anything.
And a meteor might hit an open receiver in the head too, making him miss the catch.

We've got rule 2-3 in the event that something like that happens.

Happened in the 1954 Cotton Bowl where a teammate of Bart Starr came off the bench to make a tackle.

Good coaching or bad, we will disagree and this is an officiating board anyway. My point is that it is not, to my mind at least, anywhere near cheating. I would also add that it is not bad sportsmanship either.