|
|||
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....
__________________
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out. -- John Wooden |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Your Azz is the Red Sea, My foot is Moses, and I am about to part the Red Sea all the way up to my knee!" All references/comments are intended for educational purposes. Opinions are free. |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
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.
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
|
|||
Quote:
The "ball instead of FTs" doesn't work either; it just incentivizes the defense to take bigger and bigger risks in hopes of a steal, with no downside. And eventually the officials tired of playing 2 seconds at a time will let something go that should be called, et cetera. The problem with the steep penalty (3 FTs at 13+, or a time runoff) is that when the penalty is steep, some officials may factor that into their judgment of what to call. I'm talking about the same logic that led to the 5-yard face mask penalty. For the grasp and release, 15 yards seemed too punitive, so it would get passed on sometimes. Then for the grasp, slight twist, release, well that's close to the same so don't call that either. The 5-yard option gives officials a way to correct it without being punitive. The real solution is a shot clock. But for budgetary reasons, that won't be mandated by Fed for quite some time. Until then, late game fouling is a necessary evil.
__________________
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out. -- John Wooden |
|
|||
That might be the case if everybody is nice, but my thinking is that you will have more instances where you have more taunting & rough play trying to goad the leading team into shooting the ft's...I agree there are provisions to deal with things like that, but I'd rather avoid them...I don't mind the end of game the way it is now, make your ft's and you usually don't have to worry about losing the lead...
|
|
|||
Quote:
I think the NF should try this and see how it works out. In fact, I think I'll suggest it for a rule change for our kids rec league next season.
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
|
|||
Quote:
Secondly, yes, you could foul every two seconds, but eventually you will probably foul the player that the offensive team would like to send to the line. If the fouls become hard fouls with excessive force or without attempt to play the ball, the official can still call an intentional foul (though, I will agree that officials do hesitate to make this call because of the massive difference in penalty compared to a regular foul -- which could be the difference between 1+1 and 2+THE BALL). I do not think that calling a foul that happens to be the 13th or 14th for a team resulting in a 3-free-throw penalty would be significantly different than calling the 10th or 11th foul resulting in 2 vs. the 7th for a 1+1 -- a 67% FTer will have an expected value of 1.0 for the 1+1 vs. a 1.34 for 2 FTs. Yes, the 13th foul has an expected value of 2.0 in this situation, but not enough to prevent a call, in my opinion. This difference is still only about half of the difference of a 1+1 (1.0 for a 67% shooter) vs. an intentional foul which would have 2 shots (1.34 for a 67% shooter) plus another 1.2 for the extra possession yielding 1.0 vs. 2.54. This math is one reason why referees are very reluctant to call all-but-the-most-obvious intentional fouls near the end of a game. As for the answer being the shot clock, doesn't this still happen in college? Don't they have a shot clock, already? |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFHS Rules Change (Proposal) | Tim C | Baseball | 8 | Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:47am |
Fastpitch Pitcher's Rule Proposal | ukumpire | Softball | 18 | Thu Oct 04, 2007 02:04pm |
NCAA Proposal Changes (Complete list) | JRutledge | Basketball | 5 | Sat May 13, 2006 03:33pm |
AMLU rejects proposal | your boss | Baseball | 40 | Tue May 02, 2006 09:00pm |
A Modest Proposal | GarthB | Baseball | 7 | Sun Jul 31, 2005 07:39pm |