Proposed change

[tomegun]

This is something someone sent me today. I repeat, this did not originate from me and I don't like it! What do you guys think?

"I heard something interesting today. What do you think
about eliminating the foul out of a player, and
replace it with after x number of fouls by a
particular player you get 2 shots and the ball. It was
stated that basketball is the only sport that
participants can be removed from the game for
technical penalities(meaning non flagrant offenses)."

[Back In The Saddle]

It would be a fundamental change to the game, and I don't think I'd like it. But the ABA rules allow a player to remain in the game after his sixth foul with the additional penalty of an extra free throw and the ball.

From http://www.abalive.com/rules/

• When a player has committed a 6th Foul (combination of personals & a direct technical); he may continue to participate in the game as a 6th Foul Player.
• When a 6th Foul Player commits a Personal Foul, the penalty is One Free Throw (or one additional free throw) for the offended team, plus the ball for a throw-in at a designated spot, nearest the foul.
• The 6th Foul Player Rule allows the extra free throw attempt by either one of the five players of the offended team.

[Jurassic Referee]

That concept has been discussed at different levels before. I think that I read somewhere that one of the semi-pro leagues is currently trying, or is going to try, the concept. Personally, I like the idea. You can still have the disqualification penalty for flagrant acts.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by tomegun
This is something someone sent me today. I repeat, this did not originate from me and I don't like it! What do you guys think?

"I heard something interesting today. What do you think
about eliminating the foul out of a player, and
replace it with after x number of fouls by a
particular player you get 2 shots and the ball. It was
stated that basketball is the only sport that
participants can be removed from the game for
technical penalities(meaning non flagrant offenses)."

Who ever told you it is the only sport is wrong. You can foul out in lacrosse and I believe hockey.

[icallfouls]

I work in the ABA, and the rule is unique to the league. It meets a couple of needs for the ABA. For league purposes and goals it is a benefit for a player to exceed the personal foul count, however, it penalizes continued fouling tactics if the player remains in the game.

Personally, I like it at this level(ABA), however I would not like to see it implemented at the HS or NCAA level. Maybe a good idea at the CC or D-3 level for leagues/teams that cannot keep players eligible, healthy, field enough players, etc.

One shot and the ball would be my recommendation IF the rule ever came into use.

[Junker]

It sounds to me like this would drag the end of games out. I don't think I'd like that. I'm usually getting thirsty and want to get out of there. Also, it would get rid of any flow in some games. Lastly, I would think it could result in more flagrant fouls. Just my opinion.

[26 Year Gap]

Think of all the scorebooks that would have to be recalled.


[Edited by 26 Year Gap on Apr 15th, 2005 at 08:00 PM]

[Jay R]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

Who ever told you it is the only sport is wrong. You can foul out in lacrosse and I believe hockey.

I don't know lacrosse even though it is Canada's national sport, but you cannot foul out in hockey.

First of all, they are called penalties in hockey and you can have as many as you want or your coach will tolerate. There are game misconducts and match penalties (spearing for example). Even fighting is not a disqualification at the NHL level, it is at some lower levels.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by 26 Year Gap
Think of all the scorebooks that would have to be recalled.

Scorebook publishers would be all for it. They wouldn't recall anything, they'd print new ones and folks would have to buy them.