Changing the bonus from shooting to an option

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If a team is not going to shoot the free throws and their opponents know it, why would they not be just as likely to foul?

Coach: "Go for the steal. Be aggressive! If you foul, so what? They take the ball out and we try again."

Exactly my thought on that option and why I don't favor it. It may even encourage rough play.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Frankly, I support the idea. Just think of how much it would "clean up" the end of a close game. Defenders would have no reason to foul unless it was the result of them going for the ball. We wouldn't have all this controversy about whether or not a foul was intentional at the end of a game.

A lot of guys say that fouling at the end is just "part of the game". Well - it shouldn't be. Committing fouls on purpose is not what Dr. Naismith envisioned. I ought to know - I asked him personally.

Do you know that FIBA had this option until some years ago? After each foul with free throw penalty (except the additional free throw after a foul and made basket), the offended team could choose a throw in from the division line.

Now they've canceled this option and I agree with this decision: it forces player to learn how to shoot free throws. IMO this is better for the game, provided officials call correctly unsportsmanlike (intentional, in NF lingo) fouls when they are not like play fouls. We know that they are done on purpose, but we cannot judge the intent.

Ciao

[tomegun]

Two things:

1. It would speed the game up instead of slowing it down. If a team fouls and it takes the officials longer to aske the coach what he/she wants to do than it would to line two teams up to shoot, then that official needs to learn how to communicate better. When the ball is put into play the clock will run and the game will get over quicker. I mention this because someone said the game will not end quicker.
2. The coach on defense would now try to foul a team's best FT shooter instead of their worst. This would make the decision harder for the coach on offense. Depending on the situation, I would much rather have one of my players who shoots 80 percent on the line instead of the ball out of bounds.

Like many things, this wouldn't necessarily have the result that immediately comes to mind.

[Texas Aggie]

I've suggested in the past, to particularly cold reception, the elimination of 1 and 1 and going with 2 shots at 7 and 2 shots and the ball at 10. I think the idea mentioned earlier of 3 shots instead of the ball is a good one. I also like the idea of time runoff.

But the best post on this thread, and one that supports the idea that some sort of change is needed, is the one about the 3 point line. If you've got a half way decent 3 point shooter, the fouling team gets a nice trade off that I don't think the rules intend for.

As far as other ways teams gain an advantage by rules infractions, please provide specific examples. No blanket statement that they don't exist, but lets look at each one individually.

[Scooby]

I would love to see this rule change. If it was not in the benefit of the offensive team then they can shoot the free throws. I do not like seeing a team that is breaking the rules gaining an advantage. And even if they do gain advantage I would like to see that it is minimized as much as possible.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I think the idea mentioned earlier of 3 shots instead of the ball is a good one. I also like the idea of time runoff.



But the best post on this thread, and one that supports the idea that some sort of change is needed, is the one about the 3 point line.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

As far as other ways teams gain an advantage by rules infractions, please provide specific examples. No blanket statement that they don't exist, but lets look at each one individually.

Purposefully committing a delay of game violation late to allow the defense time to set up, or to alter the personnel, etc.
Fouling a shooter on a break-away layup.

[Nevadaref]

If the proper job is done by the official, then the violating/fouling team will not derive an undue benefit from either of your examples.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Purposefully committing a delay of game violation late to allow the defense time to set up, or to alter the personnel, etc.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 11: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5, running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (9-3-2; 10-1-8)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fouling a shooter on a break-away layup.

2005-06 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. Intentional Fouls. The committee is concerned about how games end. The intentional foul rule has devolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[Adam]

Nevada, consider this example.
30 seconds left, the ball goes out of bounds. Just after the official gives the ball to the thrower, B1 steps out of bounds to guard the thrower more closely. The benefit here is that he has given his defense time to set up, the clock is not unduly stopped. You gonna call this T if they haven't had a delay warning yet?

Or, following a timeout late in the game, B1 steps out just after A1 gets the ball for the throwin. B now knows has a better idea how to defend and gets an extra few seconds to set up; getting coached while the official reports the warning to the table. You gonna call this a T without a prior DOG warning?

I'm fully aware of the intentional foul rule, and have never been afraid to call it. You can't tell me, though, that you make this call whenever a shooter gets fouled from behind; on a layup or not.

These are cases where a team breaks a rule and gains a benefit.

The case play you mention isn't relevant to my play. I was aware of that case play and the philosophy behind it, that's why I didn't mention going out of bounds for an unauthorized reason. Neither is the case play that authorizes us to ignore the DOG when the defense is only doing it to stop the clock when there is less than 5 seconds left in the game.

BTW, I've got one more.

2 on 1 fast break and the defender purposefully sticks his foot out to stop a pass he can't otherwise defend. Kicking, ball OOB for A, yet B1 just stopped a fast break and now A has to play 5 on 5 again. Advantage B.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada, consider this example.
30 seconds left, the ball goes out of bounds. Just after the official gives the ball to the thrower, B1 steps out of bounds to guard the thrower more closely. The benefit here is that he has given his defense time to set up, the clock is not unduly stopped. You gonna call this T if they haven't had a delay warning yet?

Or, following a timeout late in the game, B1 steps out just after A1 gets the ball for the throwin. B now knows has a better idea how to defend and gets an extra few seconds to set up; getting coached while the official reports the warning to the table. You gonna call this a T without a prior DOG warning?

From the above NFHS interp:
"If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior."
It's definitely a consideration. One used to see this all the time in the NBA, but it seems to have disappeared. I wonder what they did to address this problem.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can't tell me, though, that you make this call whenever a shooter gets fouled from behind; on a layup or not.

If the offensive player has a clear path to the basket and is pushed or fouled from behind, you can bet that I'm calling it intentional whether he is yet in the act of shooting or not.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The case play you mention isn't relevant to my play. I was aware of that case play and the philosophy behind it, that's why I didn't mention going out of bounds for an unauthorized reason. Neither is the case play that authorizes us to ignore the DOG when the defense is only doing it to stop the clock when there is less than 5 seconds left in the game.

It is relevant because it instructs us to consider an unsporting technical foul for intentional noncontact violations.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

BTW, I've got one more.

2 on 1 fast break and the defender purposefully sticks his foot out to stop a pass he can't otherwise defend. Kicking, ball OOB for A, yet B1 just stopped a fast break and now A has to play 5 on 5 again. Advantage B.

In order to be a violation a kick has to be intentional any time that it is done. Therefore, since there is no such thing as an unintentional kicking violation, I don't believe that this is a quality example.
Furthermore, this is not something which can be diagrammed in a huddle and then readily executed on the court, and therefore would be difficult to consider unsporting. The kid just has to use his athletic ability the best that he can to make a play and stop the situation. He still has to make contact with the ball. It's not as if merely attempting to kick the ball is a violation that a player could deviously try to use to stop a fast break.
Team A bears some responsibility to execute a decent 2 on 1 break.

However, if B1 were to purposely swing his arms and elbows about such that it were reasonable to believe that it was unsafe for the two attacking opponents to enter the FT lane in an attempt to score, then in that particular situation merely calling a violation would indeed allow Team B to benefit from a grossly unfair tactic. Therefore the NFHS ruling should be invoked and this should be deemed an unsporting technical foul.

See how vastly different those two situations are?

[Adam]

Nevada, the question was posed about when other situations occur that breaking the rules provides an advantage.

Unless you can tell me you call an intentional foul every time a shooter gets fouled from behind, that's an example. And if you call it that way, you're the only one. I'm not talking about grabbing a kid's waist on his way up to shoot, or taking him out of the picture. I'm talking about a defender stuck behind the shooter in the low post, reaching in to try to block the shot and slapping the shooting arm in the process. This is an advantageous foul.

The kicking violation is a prime example.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In order to be a violation a kick has to be intentional any time that it is done. Therefore, since there is no such thing as an unintentional kicking violation, I don't believe that this is a quality example.

Maybe I should have said "intentionally" instead of "purposefully." But I think you'll find they mean the same thing.

I did it all the time when I was playing and would get stuck defending a 2 on 1 fast break. It was a way of trying to stop a bounce pass I couldn't reach with my hands. It was an intentional violation to stop a fast break. I've see it done while reffing, also.

I'd also do it to stop a pass into the post on occasion, or when guarding an inbounds under the basket. My theory was, if they want the ball there, I don't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

However, if B1 were to purposely swing his arms and elbows about such that it were reasonable to believe that it was unsafe for the two attacking opponents to enter the FT lane in an attempt to score, then in that particular situation merely calling a violation would indeed allow Team B to benefit from a grossly unfair tactic. Therefore the NFHS ruling should be invoked and this should be deemed an unsporting technical foul.

See how vastly different those two situations are?

Yup, one is a safety issue as well as a potential indimidation tactic and has nothing to do with defending the ball. Your tazmanian devil has nothing to do with legitimate attempts to steal the ball that result in fouls.

If refs will call the intentional fouls as laid out in the rule book, there won't be any need for these exotic ideas of reform.

As I said, how many times do we really get more than 2 or 3 of these strategic fouls in a game? They're part of the game. If we want to speed the game up, take away a timeout or something, but I see a lot of solutions that vastly outweigh the "problem."

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

As far as other ways teams gain an advantage by rules infractions, please provide specific examples.

hack-a-shaq

[Jimgolf]

There is nothing wrong with the current penalties. The 1-and-1 adds pressure and strategy to the game, and the 2-shot bonus keeps strategic fouling from getting out of hand.

Coaches that don't like the rule should just get their players to take 100 FTs a day. If they can't be bothered practicing 15 minutes a day on their own, cut them.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

[Texas Aggie]

I was thinking (actually, the thought came to me during a game) that instead of the rule reading as offering a "choice", it could allow the offended team to "decline" penalty, like in football.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

It's terribly broke. That was the point of the post. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but is the game really helped when the last minute of it lasts 10 minutes and is filled with what amounts to intentional contact and free throw shooting?