Five Fouls Not Enough?
 

I'm really tired of seeing good players sit on the bench much of the game because of foul trouble. The really bad part is the first half when a player picks up two fouls early and has to sit the rest of the half. ANYBODY can pick up two quick fouls -- and officials can certainly make mistakes. It seems to me that the answer is simple -- up the limit from five to six. Five has been the limit since the typical college score was 25-17 -- it certainly doesn't seem appropriate in the fast-paced, tight-defense game we see today. I believe a six-foul limit was tried a few years ago for pre-conference games somewhere, and apparently it wasn't popular. I wonder why not?

Why not? It would go directly in opposition to the movement to clean up rough play. Allow more fouls, you'll get more physical play.

how will that extra foul help anything -- now we can expect sloppier defense and more hacks...great job -- I propose 3 fouls but I will settle for 4.

OK Fanboy, go ahead and tell us which of your favorite teams keeps losing cause the coach won't tell em to quit slapping at the ball.

SOmeone get me some popcorn please. This one ought to get good.

There is a team I worked twice this season that seems to have an interesting strategy along these lines.

It appears that they're coached to go aggressively at the ball without regard to fouls with the hope that either the officials will get tired of calling the fouls and will only call the "worst" of them and/or the other team will cower from the repeated contact allowing the aggressive team to take over the game. It makes for a really ugly and unenjoyable game.

They rotate a lot of players onto the floor so foul trouble is not particulary a concern for most of the team.

In both of their games, we probably called over 15 fouls per half on this team with NO adjustment whatsoever from the team. They just keep bumping, slapping, and grabbing.

The coach didn't like me one bit because I wouldn't "let them play". I persisted in not allowing them to pummel their opponents into the floor until they gave up.

Note that I'm just as happy to have a half with under 5-6 fouls per team (and I've had several of those too).

Wow Camron -- were you at my game last night? This describes the visiting team almost exactly. First half, I think we called around 12 or 13 fouls on them, and at halftime, the board said 10-3 (they stop putting them up after 10). Second half was more of the same, and in the end, I think we probably called around 15-16 on the visitors, and 6 on the home team. THing was, visitors were up 4 after the first quarter, 15 at the half, and won going away by about 25 or so. SOme nights, though, you just gotta keep blowing the whistle.

This is the main reason why I favor a rule change to eliminate the 1 and 1, go to 2 shots after the 6th foul, and 2 shots and the ball after the 10th foul.

No one seems to like that idea about the above, which seems to happen to all of us. I guarantee you: the team will adjust.

Personally, 5 fouls would be plenty if players were taught early on that the handchecking and lcutch-n-grab are going to be called and called consistently.

One rule change I'd like to see seriusly is to adopt a rule similar to the NBA for the 2nd and 4th quarter where if a team has less than 6 team fouls, the bonus is shot for appropriate fouls after the second foul inside 2 minutes.

The solution is simple, Jimmy Crack Corn (and I don't care). Don't foul.

Rich, you've missed the most important part.

It is *your* fault these players get in foul trouble. Adding a 6th foul would give you 1 more chance to screw it up per player.

Jim, please take this the right way, and also know I have never seen you work, but are these fouls being called on an advantage/disadvantage basis? Maybe you are and there is nothing you can do then but I see many officials who call little bumps on rebounds and such that had NO effect on the opposing player at all. These do not have to be called and can help somewhat. I am not saying don't call any fouls, or fouls on good contact, but see if the advantage was gained. If it is, and the team is just very aggressive, then you cannot do anything about it and they will have to adjust. Just a possibility I am bringing up.

Two shots and the ball is far too punitive.

It would put an end to the strategic fouling at the end of the game(with 10 fouls or more).

Minnesota Officials?
 

I may be off base here but I seem to remember here in Minnesota (yes we are the state who bucks the Fed with 18 min halves, monitor usage at State Tournament games, visitors wear white) a number of years ago, before I started officiating, a player could stay in the game after his 5th foul. Subsequent fouls by that player resulted in 2 free throws plus the ball (l don't remember but I think it was at the division line). I don't recall there was limit on how many additional fouls a player could get and keep playing as long as his team was willing to pay the price.

I admit I am somewhat vague on the details, and exactly when this was used and how long it continued. This was definitely back in my fanboy days so I plead fan ignorance on the exact rule. Any old-time MN officials recall the details better than me?

Five Fouls is Plenty
 

From a coaches perspective - I think 5 fouls is plenty, I don't like the idea of 6 - I want my girls to know that they have to play defense correctly - teach it correctly and there really isn't much of an issue. Sure, I get frustrated when my best defender picks up quick fouls - but 99% of the time - it's there fault... I think the important thing is that what I read in another post in this thread - calls that are consistent... what's called in a game changes from game to game, but it shouldn't change from half to half of the same game - if you call minor contact in the first quarter - call the same thing in the 4th... as a coach, this has been my biggest complaint about the officials we have had this year - they just didn't seem to be consistent throughout the games, and with each other - one ref might call the smallest contact, while the other wouldn't call an assault - this makes it hard for kids (especially junior high / freshman in HS) to understand what they can and can't do - what is acceptable and what isn't... why one time it's a foul, and another it isn't...

It was the Big East, and it was for conference games only (not pre-conference). Why wasn't it popular? Because the players started beating the crap out of each other. The games were generally wrestling matches. It lasted only one year, IIRC.

No
 

if a team has played well enough in the whole half to keep the foul count low, why penalize them for using the fouls strategically to keep the other team from scoring. The NBA is purely for entertainment, so they use that rule to keep the superstars from being fouled before they start a drive, or at least if they are to let them get to the line....in high school a team shouldn't be punished for keeping the foul count low..

I was thinking 4 myself. ;)

You remember correctly iirc.

So that they don't have to foul 5 times in order to get to the 1-and-1. Suppose Team A has played great defense and has only been charged with 3 team fouls in the second half. However, in the last minute, they are losing by 4 points.

What's the obvious strategy? Foul and make Team B shoot 1-and-1. Unfortunately, Team A now has to foul 4 times to get to that point. Why make them do that? We all know what they're trying to do. So on the second foul inside the last minute (or 2 minutes, if you prefer), we automatically go to the bonus. It prevents fouls for the sake of fouls.

I'm not saying I agree with a rule change for this. I'm merely answering your question about why somebody might be in favor of it.

is that really fair
 

Is it really fair to the team in the lead that the other team doesn't have to get to the bonus the old fashioned way? I have seen teams actually try to avoid being fouled to help run out the clock...with a change like this it eliminates the advantage that they had...

I never said it was fair. :) I was just giving one reason why somebody might suggest it.

You want fair, go find Judge Judy. :)

There are 2 women's teams out here in the midwest that use the same strategy....rotate tons of players, trap and press everywhere, bump, push, challenge, shove...with the hope that officials will get tired of calling everything and they will get away with it.

I am sure some days they do. I hate doing those games because the foul count always gets to about 60 (on both teams).

We hear the consistancy thing every year from the coaches in our area. The pat response is that when the players play consistanly, we will be able to ref consistantly. However, my wife is a varsity coach and I can't ignore her or give the pat answers without some grief.

In my defense, I have to say its hard to get consistancy when I ref with a different person or persons just about every game. We pregame senerios, but a lot of time an individuals personal philosophy gets in the way. The best we can do is to try to adjust to how our partner is calling, just as coaches adjust to how the game is being called. I don't doubt it is sometimes frustrating, but I don't think its ever going to be perfect.

And back to the orginal thread - FIVE FOULS IS A PLENTY!

I agree - 5 fouls is enough.

Heck - if 5 isn't enough fouls for those "good" players - maybe we should really feel sorry for them, their coaches, and teams and should up the amount of fouls prior to disqualification. What the he!! - lets do it right and go straight to UNLIMITED fouls. Gosh - that might be the way to solve the problem. Then we could keep the "good" players in all the time and wouldn't have to have strategy at all.

Lets carry it over to society - NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY OFFENSE - LETS KEEP THE BEST MURDERERS, RAPISTS, BURGLARS ETC OUT THERE, even if they CAN'T play by the rules.

Hey - there's another solution to your problem. NO RULES!!!!! Without rules, there wouldn't be any fouls -no one could foul out AND it would be easier for us as officials. :rolleyes: :eek: :(

And there wouldn't be any rules for us to argue about on here!

But you're right - when people complain "You're not supposed to call it that way" - that's what the rules say, that's what I'm calling, and you're gonna like it or live with it. The biggest problem with this game isn't the 5 foul limit - it's the fact that so many people call it so many different ways at so many different times - This means that from game to game, so many rules and interpretations change, it isn't the same game twice. Why have rules, if you're not going to follow them, enforce them evenly and fairly and consistently, and play by them all the time?

Stepping off my soap-box now.

Minnesota Clarification
 

I was a high school statistician, and my team went to state in 1987 when they first implemented that rule. It was perfect for us, because we had a 6'8 center who otherwise would have fouled out often. There was no limit to the number of fouls, every foul past #5 was basically assessed as a technical. This was the same year the three-point line was introduced in Minnesota.

It lasted for maybe two or three seasons, until some girl got whacked hard by a girl who was over the limit. She ended up pretty seriously hurt, at least a concussion. At that point, the powers that be decided that RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON!

In an unprecedented move major league baseball has decided it is tired of it's superstars striking out too often so they will be allowing four strikes rationalizing that umpires don't know the strike zone.

It is about as ludicrous as this OP. Jim Bob you picked an interesting topic for your first post ever. I'm betting you don't officiate at all.

It is an acceptable strategy. Why get rid of it?

Mregor

I didn't mean for it to sound like I was saying to get rid of it, but I can see how it could be taken that way. I should have put "plus" before anything else to make it clear since I was responding to the previous comment that 2 shots and the ball would be to punitive.

mplagrow, thanks for verifying my memory was correct.