Rule Change #2

[Snake~eyes]

Fouling is a strategic part of the game, why would you take that away? If teams are fouling towards the end of the game (POE this year) then we need to make the call if it is overly rough or they are not making any play on the ball.

[Bama_Ref_N_Ump]

One rule I think should be changed is the double bonus on 10 team fouls in the FIRST half. The purpose for this rule when it was put in place was to discourage a team who is trailing to stop fouling to stop the clock.

#1 - This rule HAS NOT worked as desired. Coaches still have their players foul irregardless of how many team fouls have been committed.

#2 - (and actually more in-line with the reason stated in original rule change proposal) .. Has ANYONE ever seen a team start fouling in the first half to stop the clock and put the other team on the free throw line hoping to get the ball back? I know I haven't.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
Fouling is a strategic part of the game, why would you take that away? If teams are fouling towards the end of the game (POE this year) then we need to make the call if it is overly rough or they are not making any play on the ball.

I think the Fed's are trying to remove such a strategy of teams purposely fouling during any moment of a game.

Our options include to recognize a deliberate foul whether it is a touch, push, etc. and to have the guts to call an intentional foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Bama_Ref_N_Ump


One rule I think should be changed is the double bonus on 10 team fouls in the FIRST half. The purpose for this rule when it was put in place was to discourage a team who is trailing to stop fouling to stop the clock.

#1 - This rule HAS NOT worked as desired. Coaches still have their players foul irregardless of how many team fouls have been committed.

Even if it hasn't reduced it, it did make the strategy less effective since it increased the opposing team's likely points on that possession.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by johnny1784

I agree to eliminate the bonus (one and one) and only keep the double-bonus.

Actually, there is no "double" bonus.

On a 1+1, the 2nd shot is the bonus for making the first.

For 2 shot fouls, the 2nd shot is an "automatic" bonus.

If there were such a thing double bonus, the FTs would be a 1+1+1. Make the first, get a second, make the second, get a third.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by johnny1784
I think the Fed's are trying to remove such a strategy of teams purposely fouling during any moment of a game.

Not according to the POEs, they're not.

The FED recognizes the point of "strategic fouling" and that even though a foul might be made with intent, it's not necessarily an intentional foul.

I do agree with you that some Intentionl Fouls are not properly called -- but I think that the vast majority of what fans want to be Intentional Fouls are properly called common fouls.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Actually, there is no "double" bonus.

On a 1+1, the 2nd shot is the bonus for making the first.

For 2 shot fouls, the 2nd shot is an "automatic" bonus.

If there were such a thing double bonus, the FTs would be a 1+1+1. Make the first, get a second, make the second, get a third.

There is a double-bonus, two-shots. It is verbiage used to define teams 10th foul for each half of a bonus.

And the definition posted by you is correct, "On a 1+1, the 2nd shot is the bonus for making the first".

In actuality, if your definition of "double bonus" were true, you would be shooting 2 bonus' situations of 1+1 twice and not 1+1+1.

Okay, for now on use, "bonus, 2-shots."

Are you happy now?

[TussAgee11]

Originally posted by dave30
I would be in favor of following a rule similar to the NBA. Starting with the fifth foul PER QUARTER, teams would shoot two free throws, no more one and one. Each quarter would start over as far as the bonus situation and fouls to get back in the game would not be such a huge advantage if the player gets TWO shots instead of one and one.

I'll do you one better. Last 2 minutes of the game, assuming the team has not hit that 5 fouls per quarter, they get a free foul with under 2 minutes left, and after that it automatically goes to bonus. Thats the NBA. Maybe for High School we'd have to change the numbers around since the quarters are shorter (4 fouls per quarter, fouls in the last minute you get 2).

This prevents those annoying times when a team has to foul 5 times to get the other team in the bonus.

I think double bonus is crap and it should all be 1-1 like the old days.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by johnny1784
[
There is a double-bonus, two-shots. It is verbiage used to define teams 10th foul for each half of a bonus.

And the definition posted by you is correct, "On a 1+1, the 2nd shot is the bonus for making the first".

In actuality, if your definition of "double bonus" were true, you would be shooting 2 bonus' situations of 1+1 twice and not 1+1+1.

Okay, for now on use, "bonus, 2-shots."

Are you happy now?

FWIW, Johnny, I see no difference between the "double bonus" discussion and the "double dribble" discussion -- both are commonly accepted terms that probably aren't technically correct according to the rule book (should be something like "automatic bonus" and "illegal dribble.")

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, Johnny, I see no difference between the "double bonus" discussion and the "double dribble" discussion -- both are commonly accepted terms that probably aren't technically correct according to the rule book (should be something like "automatic bonus" and "illegal dribble.")

Agreed...and I do use them both...just pointing out the technical meaning of it.