Basketball Needs To Be Fixed
 

The last two minutes of most games is atrocious. I cant think of another sport where the over-riding driver of one of the teams on the floor is to deliberately break the rules again and again. Intentional fouling is ruining the game, especially in High School ball with no shot clock. It makes a mockery of the game-- devaluing sportmanship, flow and athleticism. It's out of whack if a team can gain advantage by breaking the rule (and, in reality they sometimes can gain advantage by fouling, or they wouldn't be doing it) then the penalty for that foul is not sever enough. A simple rule change can eliminate most of the nonsense. Any foul in the last 2 minutes is automatic 2 FT and possession. Maybe you dont like that, and it would be drastic, how about we start calling any foul that is intentional-- an "intentional foul"

Make the free throws.

Your solutions would lead to a much worse product.

The game is fine. Nothing you state is going to help the game IMO. As Rich says, make FTs and this problem is solved. They are after all "free."

Peace

Calling an intentional foul an intentional foul will help. They are not called enough.

Late game fouling is a desperation move when there is no other option.

In most sports, the losing team will become more and more desperate and take more and more risks as the clock winds down. Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Hockey teams pull the goalie, football teams waste a down by spiking the ball and killing the clock, basketball teams foul and give the other team free throws, baseball teams sub out balanced player for an offensive pinch hitter or pinch runner, etc. It's certainly not something that needs to be prohibited.

I agree, but that is not the issue here. Fouling at the end of the game is an acceptable practice by the rules makers. You can foul at the end of the game and not commit an intentional foul.

Peace

Don't change the rules to help those that are poor at one aspect of the game. Make the freethrows. If you can't you deserve to be put at a disadvantage.

You don't say.

Lack of enforcing intentional fouls was a point of emphasis this year.

https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource...hasis-2017-18/

but none of those "desperation" strategies involve intentional breaking of the rules, and none of those stop the clock every 3 seconds and make the last 30 seconds of a game last twenty minutes. Make basketball teams that are behind use other "desperation" moves-- double teaming the ball in an attempt to steal, defenders comming to stealing a pass, giving up quality guarding positions, going to full court press, etc. Those can all be done.. and not make the end of a game a farce.

not being a smart-ass, interested in knowing why you think that? What about that would make it worse?

That is very true, sometimes there are legitimate fouls at the end of the game that just come from aggressive, good play. But there are also a lot of times when a ball is inbounded and the defenseman runs over and grabs the ball handler in a clear attempt to foul, and it is never called as intentional.

Make the (intentional foul) calls!

Again, it is not illegal to "intentionally" foul someone. The foul is not based on whether you meant to do it, it is based on the kind of action that you fouled them. Like you never made any attempt at the ball. If I reach for the ball hand foul you, your intent is not the issue. Yes, that is why the NF said it was an acceptable strategy to foul a player at the end of the game on purpose. ;)

Peace

According to you, any foul at the end of the game would be ruled as intentional. We would have legitimate plays rules that way and would end the game really early. There would be no drama at the end to make the FTs when they clearly are fouled or a team takes a risk to steal the ball.

Peace

I don't necessarily disagree with the OP...the end of basketball games, from the NBA to HS, is typically tedious and boring when you get into FT shooting contests. I don't agree that any foul in the last two minutes should equal 2FT and possession though, as that doesn't solve the issue, and penalizes legitimate defensive play.

I wonder what would happen if you gave the fouled team the option to shoot FT or take the ball out of bounds...just thinking off the top of my head. I know this has been discussed for hack-a-shaq situations, which is also an issue. I've never understood why you force a team to take a reward and don't give them a choice since they are the offended party.

So the losing team would just continue fouling and the winning team will continue taking the ball out. That won't speed up the game.

I’d be up with the option—high school rules 70-80 years ago gave that option.

I’d add a caveat—the offended team could either inbound at the spot of the foul or at 3/4 court—with no defense allowed in the backcourt (penalty: technical foul) until the ball gains front court status. “Free-ins” so to speak.

I believe that was the FIBA rule many years ago.

Had a close game this weekend where kid told me out of a timeout they were going to foul. I said make sure you make a play on the ball....Kid proceeded to grab a player from behind by the arms...he didn't have the ball.

Coach was dumbfounded why I called intentional foul. :confused:

I have to admit, I had the same question.

Other proposals, which I think aren't terrible, include automatic bonus and possession after the 12th foul or something similar.

Probably because in prior games other officials let that go as a common foul. You ruined his end of game plan. :eek:

Maybe go to 3 FTs to make 2 like it was in NBA back in the day.:D

Throw in takes much less time than free throws and gives the fouled team a chance to play keep away. Plus, with little chance of creating a turnover beyond an actual steal of the ball, the incentive to simply foul and not actually try for a steal is diminished.

As others have mentioned, this is not a new concept (damn, there goes my patent).

That is the point of my post. Basketball should end condoning fouling on purpose. The very act of committing a foul is acting outside the rules, that is why we blow the whistle and punish them. We should re-think the mindset that condones that.

No need for drama-- lets let good basketball play decide the contest. In my mind good basketball play includes speed and power and flow and playmaking with the ball. None of those count for anything in the final moments of a foul cause you are behind end of game scenario. It comes down to a coach calling play after play in timeouts like a football coach.. and guys grabbing the ball handler like he is a cop making an arrest.

Art Hyland and JD Collins do not peruse this forum, so constantly asking for rules changes here is a fruitless endeavor.

Not under any delusion that this thread will be taken seriously be any bball power brokers-- just like hearing from like minds on topics-- its very interesting and expands my points of view on rules and the game in general

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

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

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.

Connecticut Shot Clock ...
 

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.

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.)

He Graduates ...
 

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.

Here's one other thought on the subject.

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

To all those who say “just make your free throws”, you are missing the point. The problem in basketball is that the penalty does not fit the crime. In baseball, if a fielder obstructs a runner, the runner is awarded the next base. In football, if a defender commits pass interference, the offense gets the ball at the spot as if the pass were completed.

But in basketball, assuming a 75% FT shooter, the defense can commit a foul to prevent a sure layup, and the offended team only gets 1.5 points, instead of 2. And the coach will yell “Good Foul”. A team is gaining an advantage by committing an illegal act.

The fact that higher ups are still discussing this as an issue makes me think the problem is real and not a "solution looking for a problem". Obviously this isn't something that needs to be fixed tomorrow or the sport will die, but a push to continually improve a sport or entertainment product.

I think the idea in the article is very interesting, but of course will never happen, as it is too radical for purists. However, I do bet something happens as professional sports leagues continue to try and retain viewers and optimize their product.

What needs to be fixed in basketball is the behavior of jackass parents and coaches. That is what is hurting the game.

That's applicable to the entire game, not just the end. So basically some folks want to change the entire foundation of the game.

The game is about the most popular in our country across the board. Only football is more watched at all levels. Baseball for young kids is a total afterthought and you are complaining as if people really care about this. Fans like drama at the end of the game. When you make FTs, the drama ends.

Again, they get 5 fouls for a reason. Nothing in the rules says you cannot foul a player on purpose. And basketball is the main sport where a foul or violation of the rules allows the team an opportunity to score directly from the foul (I know soccer has a penalty shot and so does hockey, but those are rare in those game) Even the Intentional Foul is not called because it was done intentionally. It is called because of specific actions that are outside of normal play, which could involve excessive contact. So if I try to block a shot and I know that I am likely going to be called for a foul, an intentional foul should be called? Sorry, that sounds silly. Because there are times in the game when a defender wants to foul near the basket to send a message they will be there all game.

I do not see people walking away from the game over this issue. There is always something to complain about, but that does not mean it is not accepted by many. Again, make FTs and the strategy does not work.

Peace

They have been talking about one and done rule too and nothing has changed drastically in that rule. And that is a rather recent policy. People talk about that much more than what happens at the end of an NBA game. Actually, the NBA's rule is less punitive than other levels.

Peace

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.

for those not clicking on that link--
 

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.

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

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

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.

Look What Happened To The Dinosaurs ...
 

The receiver might be temporarily blinded by a meteor. He could be struck by a meteorite. Hey, look what happened to the dinosaurs, they were also wide open.

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/anima...rskn23_low.jpg