Accept the penalty, decline the shots?

N_Stripes · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 12:55pm

Survey time! Your thoughts and comments please.

Should a team be able to accept a non-shooting foul against them, and then decline the bonus shots in favor of a throw in at the spot? Would be similar to football's 'accept the penalty and decline the distance' procedure.

It seems that a team with poor free throw shooters is being put at a disadvantage after B's illegal act or foul, especially where a team puts the other in the bonus early. There are many cases where a team would have preferred not to have been fouled, and by that B gained an advantage that is not intended by rule.

Please no cop-out answers like, "A should have better FT shooters."

Do you like or dislike the idea and why or why not? If it as considered, would you place time restrictions like "up to the last two minutes of the half or last period", etc. Thanks in advance.

cmathews · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:01pm

To say that A should have had better Free throw shooters is not a cop out, it is a fact. That plays into the strategy of the game. It even goes farther than that. If team A has a 6-10 center that can dunk every time he turns around or is a sure two points from anywhere within 10 feet, but shoots 27% from the line, I am going to have my little 6-3 forwards keep him from scoring. Make him beat me from the line so to speak. So in essence no I don't think that they should be able to decline the shots....

ChuckElias · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by N_Stripes
Should a team be able to accept a non-shooting foul against them, and then decline the bonus shots in favor of a throw in at the spot?

I seem to remember that the NCAA used this as an experimental rule for one year in the 80's. Anybody remember exactly when? If I'm right, then not enough enough people liked it to keep it around.

RefRx · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:19pm

I think it would have merit, especially in the 4th qtr when we see the defense foul, hopefully trading 0-1 or 2 points for a chance at 3 points. Collectively we do a poor job of calling intentional fouls at this point of the game and if the offense had the option of passing on the foul shots and holding possesion (assuming they can inbound the ball) it possibly would eliminate a lot of the ugly play we see at the end of many games. One could try this only on intentional fouls, but we would have to do a better job of calling that foul. The language change in definition of an intentional foul gives the official an out throught "playing the ball" terminology, even though is is obvious to all that the intent is to stop the clock and create the FT swituation.

Jurassic Referee · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by N_Stripes
Should a team be able to accept a non-shooting foul against them, and then decline the bonus shots in favor of a throw in at the spot?

I seem to remember that the NCAA used this as an experimental rule for one year in the 80's. Anybody remember exactly when? If I'm right, then not enough enough people liked it to keep it around.

I remember it being tried too, Chuck. Not sure about the time frame, but it was a flash in the pan.

Dan_ref · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by N_Stripes
Should a team be able to accept a non-shooting foul against them, and then decline the bonus shots in favor of a throw in at the spot?

I seem to remember that the NCAA used this as an experimental rule for one year in the 80's. Anybody remember exactly when? If I'm right, then not enough enough people liked it to keep it around.

I remember it being tried too, Chuck. Not sure about the time frame, but it was a flash in the pan.

Me too, although it was maybe in the early 90's?

Anywho...seems the ncaa has accepted late game fouls since they are differentiating "strategic fouls" from intentional fouls.

So the answer does seem to be get your team FT % up.

Damian · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:29pm

If you are going to beat us, you will have to beat us in every aspect of the game. This is paraphrased, but you get the idea. Each team has strengths and weeknesses. To win a game or a championship, you have to cover everything including free throws.

Dan_ref · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Damian
If you are going to beat us, you will have to beat us in every aspect of the game. This is paraphrased, but you get the idea. Each team has strengths and weeknesses. To win a game or a championship, you have to cover everything including free throws.

Quote from Bobby Knight:

WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE YOU STUPID SON OF A ***** I'LL KICK YOUR ****ING *** FROM HERE TO NEXT THURSDAY IF YOU EVER, I MEAN EVER!!! DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN YOU IGNORANT LITTLE ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Hawks Coach · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 02:01pm

I can only second what cmatt has said. This is NOT a copout. Even if you can hit your FTs, I want the ball back and a chance to score again if I am down. I'll give you two for the chance ot hit a 3 if it comes to that. This is how the game is played. Watch tapes of NC State's championship run if you don't believe me!

ChuckElias · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 02:17pm

I wouldn't have been quite as. . . "forceful" as Dan, but I really couldn't care less what Knight thinks about it. If he is against something, that means it must be good for the game.

Mark Padgett · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 02:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RefRx
One could try this only on intentional fouls, but we would have to do a better job of calling that foul.

HUH? You do realize that teams already get the ball back on intentional fouls, don't you? Please clarify what you mean here. Thanks.

SamIAm · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 02:49pm

N-Stripes,
Do you think a team that is very poor at in-bounding the ball, but good at making free throws should be penalized with a throw-in after the other team commits a
non-shooting/no-bonus foul? It seems the team that has difficulty in-bounding the ball is un-justly penalized by a violation?

N_Stripes · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 03:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by SamIAm
N-Stripes,
Do you think a team that is very poor at in-bounding the ball, but good at making free throws should be penalized with a throw-in after the other team commits a
non-shooting/no-bonus foul? It seems the team that has difficulty in-bounding the ball is un-justly penalized by a violation?

Sam,
You get to choose who throws the ball in for your team therefore reducing any disadvantage. Maybe teams should get to choose who shoots the bonus on non-shooting fouls? ;-)

Actually I don't have an equitable solution to my survey question nor am I recommending a change. I was simply putting a situation out there and asking the best reference group available for their humble opinion. I appreciate yours my friend.

RefRx · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 05:57pm

That sure sounds dumb .. What I meant was that we need to do a better job of calling the intentional fould towards the end of the game when they are obviously trying to stop the clock. Using this option on fouls during the end game (last 2 min?)could have a positive effect on the game.

SMEngmann · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 10, 2004, 06:51pm

The problem with the decline the shots part is that it could cause the game to deteriorate to an actionless contest with an inbound followed by a foul. It would force the officials' hand into calling an intentional foul. Of course that's essentially what strategic fouling is, but it's never been enforced that way and to do so would ultimately change the game.