Basketball Needs To Be Fixed

[Texas Aggie]

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?"

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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?

...

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

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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?

Yes, college basketball is one of the most popular sports during the sports year and we are fooling ourselves how? This site part of the site is the most popular than any other sport discussed.

What do players maybe being paid have anything to do with strategy at the end of the game that rarely works if the team takes advantage and makes their FTs? Because football must be in trouble too because they have scandals often about players getting extra benefits to go to their school or not to go to their school. (e.g Reggie Bush, Cam Newton allegations). Many more vacated wins in football than you ever see in basketball honestly. Just the Penn State situation is enough proof of that fact.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Coaches know they can cheat on the floor and get away with it; why not do it in recruiting?

That is a ludicrous leap in logic. One has to do with the game itself, and the other has to do with bringing players to your school. How in the World are they comparable?

A shot clock seems like a good thing in order to curb the fouling strategy... at least a bit. The biggest reason I'm against the shot clock coming to Ohio is I don't trust that it would be run correctly, and would create something else us officials would have to keep an eye on. Basically, the pros of a shot clock are not big enough for me to be for it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The biggest reason I'm against the shot clock coming to Ohio is I don't trust that it would be run correctly, and would create something else us officials would have to keep an eye on. Basically, the pros of a shot clock are not big enough for me to be for it.

Agree. We only use a shot clock for private prep school varsity games here in Connecticut as part of the hybrid NFHS/NCAA rules used on such games. Most of the time there's a student shot clock operator, usually a student team manager. A few do a good job, a few do a fair job, many do a terrible job, despite going over instructions with them before the game.

As game officials, we have the ability to do away with the shot clock in games where the operator is clearly having a great deal of difficulty. I've been part of crews that have been forced to use this nuclear option several times over the years.

From our statewide prep school guidelines:

If the shot clock operator has no or limited knowledge/experience:
- Be considerate; welcome individual to your “team”
- Review basic duties; do not provide an extended clinic

If the shot clock operator or shot clock presents ongoing mistakes or malfunctions; consider:
- Removal and replacement
- Removal and officiate game with no shot clock

Year after year, the shot clock continues to be an ongoing problem.

[so cal lurker]

Perhaps if the shot clock were more widely used, there would be better operators with time. It's used in CA, and I don't see a lot of problems, even in the lower level games. Yes, there are some, but a lot fewer than I would have expected. But it is something the refs have to be aware of. (I've never paid attention to whether they are mostly adults or mostly students running the shot clocl.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Perhaps if the shot clock were more widely used ... in the lower level games.

Agree. No shot clock for subvarsity private prep school games. Once a student manager figures out how to proficiently run the varsity shot clock, maybe running it for a year, or two, he graduates. Selfish kid. Just because he wants to graduate, go to college, have a successful career, get married, and raise a family, we get stuck with a new shot clock operator every year, or so.

[sj]

Here's one other thought on the subject.

Zach Lowe on The Basketball Tournament's innovative end-of-game rule

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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

In pretty much all of the direct competition sports...my HS football coaches taught us to tackle the receiver if we were beat deep, and that was a long time ago. My son was taught to tackle anyone who broke free by his High School soccer coach. Those are obvious rules infractions and were penalized accordingly...so let's not make it seem that basketball is in some "special category" because of late game fouling.

[rotationslim]

here is the radical proposal to do away with the end of game foolishness. It is a fascinating idea:

eliminate the game clock from crunch time. The clock would vanish after the first stoppage under the three-minute mark in the NBA and the four-minute mark in NCAA games. Officials would establish a target score by taking the score of the leading team and adding seven points -- then restart the game without a clock. The team that reaches that target score first wins.

That is an amazing idea-- all the sudden a team behind has to rely on defense to catch up-- rather than hacking.

[Raymond]

Someone let me know we the conversation gets back to officiating.

Rule change suggestions need to go to the NBA/NCAA/NFHS.

[ilyazhito]

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.