3 FTs proposal

[Rich]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

My thoughts exactly. This strategy is ingrained in the game--you gotta knock down your free throws late in a close game to win. If it ain't broke....

Put me in the came of not exactly seeing a problem that needs a solution.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Put me in the came of not exactly seeing a problem that needs a solution.

I've seen games(mostly at lower levels) where Coach K wannabe's will hack away to the biteer end, down 15 with 30 seconds to go.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree that the team in the lead is at a disadvantage here. You must figure in the probabilities of making the free throws as opposed to making a 3-point FG.

For example, suppose a team shoots 75% at the line. Then the expected value of 2 FT's would be 2 X .75 = 1.5.

If their opponent is making 33% of the 3-point FG's, then the expected value of their tries would be 3 X .33 = 1 (approximately).

This example might be a little high for HS, a little low for NCAA. But you see the point.

While your numbers hold for a 2-shot FT, 1-and-1s are a different story. You have a .75 on the first shot (75% of 1 shot). But, the second shot is actually only .56 (75% of 75%). This expected value of 1.31 is significantly less than 1.5. If the numbers are actually 67% and 30% (probably closer number at the HS level), the expected numbers are: 1.11 vs. .9. (This explains why a decent number of comebacks utilizing this strategy work as it is an 1.11:.90 as opposed to 1.31:1.0 or 1.5:1.0.

At some point, perhaps a strategy of fouling and making threes should be lessened in value somewhat by making foul 13 and up 3 FTs in lieu of 2 FTs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

For example, suppose a team shoots 75% at the line. Then the expected value of 2 FT's would be 2 X .75 = 1.5. If their opponent is making 33% of the 3-point FG's, then the expected value of their tries would be 3 X .33 = 1 (approximately).

I didn't know that there was going to be math on the Forum today. Can I read this post tomorrow, please?

[SamIAm]

[QUOTE=Nevadaref;568235]...

In the last three minutes of the second half or any extra period, a team having control of the ball shall be awarded three free throws for any foul committed by the opponent with more than 15 seconds remaining on the shot clock if the opponent is behind in the score.

...[QUOTE]

Everytime I try to think of something to prevent strategic fouling near the end of a game, I come back to the fact that one team needs the ball and needs to limit time running off the clock. Until you eliminate those, teams are going to foul. Any situation that has the possibility of one team "coming back" to win, regardless of the penalty, they are going to foul. They won't stop until they realize the game is out of reach. At that point both teams are merely waiting for the clock to run out and aren't competing. It is not so bad when that happens in the last 30 seconds (actionless, waiting for the clock), but I think it would stink for the last 3 minutes to be actionless.

An after thought, now if you award 5 pts for shots from beyond half court, you have done two things, 1) provided a quicker method for teams to close a scoring gap, 2) mucked up a previous question of the purpose of the division line.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was giving some thought to the unsatisfactory prolonging of the length of games by continually fouling near the end and came up with an idea.

In the last three minutes of the second half or any extra period, a team having control of the ball shall be awarded three free throws for any foul committed by the opponent with more than 15 seconds remaining on the shot clock if the opponent is behind in the score.


This would work nicely at the NCAA level and for any state which employs a shot clock at the HS level. Other states could use the idea, but would have to go by the game clock, and have someone note when possession was obtained.


The idea is to negate most of the value of the late fouling strategy by penalizing a team for quickly fouling (before twenty seconds runs off the clock) and undermining the goal of trading two points for three. Right now the team awarded the free throws is put at a disadvantage by not having the opportunity to score as many points as their opponent on each possession.

The team which is trailing would either have to allow 20 seconds to come off the clock each time the opponent got the ball or face a stiffer penalty.

How about just making it an intentional foul then they get no advantage to doing this at all.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

How about just making it an intentional foul then they get no advantage to doing this at all.

Why don't we just quit once a team is up 5 or 6 points with 2 minutes or so left?

[David M]

How about giving the fouled team the option of taking the foul shots or inbounding the ball.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by David M

How about giving the fouled team the option of taking the foul shots or inbounding the ball.

How long do you think it would take for the trailing team to kill someone on the leading team if they kept ticking them off by continually bypassing the free throws? Not a good idea IMO.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

How long do you think it would take for the trailing team to kill someone on the leading team if they kept ticking them off by continually bypassing the free throws? Not a good idea IMO.

I disagree. Once they realize the other team is not going to take the shots, but just continue to inbound, there's no reason to keep fouling on purpose. If they get too rough, the rules already allow calling intentionals or flagrants.

[Oz Referee]

Originally Posted by David M

How about giving the fouled team the option of taking the foul shots or inbounding the ball.

And this was an option under FIBA rules until 1988 - when in the penalty situation (which was one-and-one) you had the option to shoot the free throws or take the ball a the halfway line. It just resulted in harder fouls being committed on players out of frustration.

[Oz Referee]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

How about just making it an intentional foul then they get no advantage to doing this at all.

Have a look at my previous post - this is what FIBA does

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was giving some thought to the unsatisfactory prolonging of the length of games by continually fouling near the end and came up with an idea.

In the last three minutes of the second half or any extra period, a team having control of the ball shall be awarded three free throws for any foul committed by the opponent with more than 15 seconds remaining on the shot clock if the opponent is behind in the score.


This would work nicely at the NCAA level and for any state which employs a shot clock at the HS level. Other states could use the idea, but would have to go by the game clock, and have someone note when possession was obtained.


The idea is to negate most of the value of the late fouling strategy by penalizing a team for quickly fouling (before twenty seconds runs off the clock) and undermining the goal of trading two points for three. Right now the team awarded the free throws is put at a disadvantage by not having the opportunity to score as many points as their opponent on each possession.

The team which is trailing would either have to allow 20 seconds to come off the clock each time the opponent got the ball or face a stiffer penalty.

I like it.......