Changing the bonus from shooting to an option

[Texas Aggie]

If there was a rules proposal to add an out of bounds throw in option on any foul in the bonus (i.e. the offended team can take the ball OOB instead of shooting a 1-1 or 2), what would you think of that?

I'm thinking that in situations this could help minimize fouling and all but eliminate fouls to stop the clock. Further, from what I've seen, free throw shooting is somewhere between poor and horrendous for many teams I work and I know some coaches that would gladly accept the ball for a throw in rather than chance a free throw late in the game. It would also force them to teach ball stealing techniques since constant fouling isn't going to get them anywhere.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If there was a rules proposal to add an out of bounds throw in option on any foul in the bonus (i.e. the offended team can take the ball OOB instead of shooting a 1-1 or 2), what would you think of that?

I'm thinking that in situations this could help minimize fouling and all but eliminate fouls to stop the clock. Further, from what I've seen, free throw shooting is somewhere between poor and horrendous for many teams I work and I know some coaches that would gladly accept the ball for a throw in rather than chance a free throw late in the game. It would also force them to teach ball stealing techniques since constant fouling isn't going to get them anywhere.

Well, it would still stop the clock, but it would give the fouling team a lower chance of getting the ball.

It's an interesting idea.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If there was a rules proposal to add an out of bounds throw in option on any foul in the bonus (i.e. the offended team can take the ball OOB instead of shooting a 1-1 or 2), what would you think of that?

I'm thinking that in situations this could help minimize fouling and all but eliminate fouls to stop the clock. Further, from what I've seen, free throw shooting is somewhere between poor and horrendous for many teams I work and I know some coaches that would gladly accept the ball for a throw in rather than chance a free throw late in the game. It would also force them to teach ball stealing techniques since constant fouling isn't going to get them anywhere.

Personally, I'd hate it. It's hard enough to get a coach to tell me if he wants a 30 or a full TO (and I don't give him much of a chance if he doesn't tell me right away, we just go full); I don't want to have to ask after every foul whether he wants the throws or the ball OOB.

Fouling at the end of the game and forcing teams to make FTs is an accepted practice.

[Texas Aggie]

Fouling at the end of the game and forcing teams to make FTs is an accepted practice.

Its also bad for the game because 1) it prolongs it and 2) it allows teams to commit rules infractions to gain an advantage.

As far as choice goes, I don't think you'll have a big delay in getting a choice.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Its also bad for the game because 1) it prolongs it and 2) it allows teams to commit rules infractions to gain an advantage.

Teams are allowed to commit rules infractions to gain an advantage throughout the game. They just have to be sure they make it look like they're just committing normal fouls. Just like at the end of the game.

[jer166]

I believe the NCAA tinkered with this a few years back in some of the pre season tournaments. I don't know what happened, but it hasn't resurfaced at that level.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by jer166

I believe the NCAA tinkered with this a few years back in some of the pre season tournaments. I don't know what happened, but it hasn't resurfaced at that level.

Jer166:

This was an experimental NCAA rule in the past; I forget the exact year. But since I never heard anything after that year, I can only assume it was not very a warmly received experiment.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Its also bad for the game because 1) it prolongs it and 2) it allows teams to commit rules infractions to gain an advantage.

As far as choice goes, I don't think you'll have a big delay in getting a choice.

I see no way you shorten games overall - in fact this will lengthen them - because every foul after the bonus will require you to ask the coach or a captain what he wants, then you and your partners have to adjust to that to prepare for either a throw-in or a FT, whereas only at the end of close games will you have the other issue, and infractions are going to occur regardless, as teams will be aggressively trying to steal regardless.

[Nevadaref]

Instead of 1-1 if the team trailing in the last X minutes fouls, it should be two shots for fouls 7, 8, & 9 and three shots beginning with the tenth foul.

Or basketball could adopt a clock run-off rule such as football has. Any foul in the final Y minutes by the team behind in the score also results in ten seconds being deducted from the clock.

Both of these would greatly discourage the tactic of fouling when behind late in the game.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If there was a rules proposal to add an out of bounds throw in option on any foul in the bonus (i.e. the offended team can take the ball OOB instead of shooting a 1-1 or 2), what would you think of that?

I'm thinking that in situations this could help minimize fouling and all but eliminate fouls to stop the clock. Further, from what I've seen, free throw shooting is somewhere between poor and horrendous for many teams I work and I know some coaches that would gladly accept the ball for a throw in rather than chance a free throw late in the game. It would also force them to teach ball stealing techniques since constant fouling isn't going to get them anywhere.

I've suggested this a few times among some locals. I've also suggested that hockey teams be allowed to choose a 2 minute power play rather than a penalty shot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I've also suggested that hockey teams be allowed to choose a 2 minute power play rather than a penalty shot.

The hockey rule should be that if the penalty shot is not successful then the 2-minute penalty is still enforced.

[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.

[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.