3 FTs proposal
 

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.

Interesting idea. I gotta admit I like it, but getting it passed may be tough. It certainly takes away some of the coaching element in close games. I don't think that's a bad thing, but there are many people involved in the game that would. Are you sending in to the NCAA?

This is an interesting proposal. For those of us without a shot clock, this could be problematic. BUT, thinking along the same lines, since we already have the double-bonus at 10 fouls, perhaps we could add a triple-bonus at say 13 fouls. Or, perhaps, on the 13th foul and beyond the foul would be treated as a technical foul. This would allow the offensive team to put their best FTer at the line PLUS they would retain the ball. I don't like this nearly as well as some kind of 3-shot penalty. I think that this makes complete sense since the advent of the 3-point shot.

Interesting thought....

There has been a push in recent years by FIBA to get referees to call fouls in these circumstances as "unsportsmanlike" personal fouls, which results in 2 free throws and the ball back. As a result, there seemstobe far fewer games played under FIBA rules that are reduced to a free throw shooting contest.

The triple bonus has been suggested before in a manner such as you have stated. Also, it was suggested that the one-and-one be eliminated and replaced by two shots, and then when a team reaches ten fouls the penalty becomes three shots.

What hit me as a spark of insight is that the main problem goal for the team that is leading is to get the time off the clock and get the darn game over. Therefore, I came up with the idea to utilize the shot clock kind of in the reverse manner as is done for a kicking violation with the barrier at 15.

The goal is simply to discourage the team from fouling right away. Of course, once there is less than 20 seconds left in the game the trailing team may have no choice and fouling right away could still be considered the best strategy available, but at least they will suffer more for it and if they can't gain any ground on the scoreboard, then the fouling may well cease much quicker than it does now.

FWIW - FIBA did this in around 1988, as a player I was VERY happy, I often missed the front end of a 1-and-1 :)

Concur, interesting proposal.

But, I also agree that this would give an added level of complextiy to those of us already challenged at the sub-V level, with a two-man crew, without a shot clock, and with "non-professionals" at the table.

I remember (I think) the ole NBA "three for two" rule where you got three chances to make two foul shots. Of course, that was a few days ago..... ;)

I just think that the concept is worth revisiting every so often. No shot clock and some "newbies" or "homers" on the clock can make changes difficult.

I think that the very problem that we have is the 3-points-for-2-points trade off with this tactic. I don't necessarily think that we should be automatically giving a team 3-shots if they are behind. But, if a team wants to make it a FT-shooting contest, they will know that they will be giving up 3-shots after they get to 13 (I don't like 10 as this would prolong too many other games where the "tactic" was not being used, but rather just the situations in the games). This would cause the coach to "do some math" before committing the 13th, 14th foul just as they do today when they are down by 14 with 30 seconds left and no time-outs.

I'm sorry, I think we keep the Fed game moving fast enough by ignoring 3 seconds...:D

Seriously, I do think your taking away advantages allowed by the rules with this "new rule".

Team A 63 Team B 63
4th quarter 47.9 seconds on the game clock.

A1 just hit a big 3 pointer to give us a 66 - 63 score.
B1 brings the ball up under pressure and gets pick pocketed by A1 just past half court. (shot clock reset for those who have)

A1 drives for an attempted layup but is fouled from behind by B1.
(Exact same foul that happened in the 1st quarter when B was ahead by 10)
Your scenario now gives A1 3 ft's????

Your taking away the strategy of making the A team make FREE throws by forcing team B to be a 3 pointer sharpshooting team to catch up.

Baloney.

Interesting concept but I think that the last 3 minutes is too long.

Didn't the NCAA come up with some similar convoluted plan to cut down on fouling in the 80's and then ended up scrapping it during the season?

Since Nevada's main concern seems to be the clock aspect of this, why not just make it easier and adopt an NFL-type rule. Any foul by the trailing team in the last minute requires a 10 (or 15 or 20 or whatever) second runoff of the game clock.

That way, you don't have to worry about whether the game is played with a shot clock or not. The trailing team gets to stop the clock, but at the cost of losing a few seconds.

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.

The fact that FT's are much easier to make than 3-point FG's means that trading a chance for 2 against a chance for 3 is often to the advantage of the team in the lead.

The probabilities in my examples are just that: examples. The team in the lead needs to make their FT's to stay ahead, and if they shoot only 25% at the end of the game they can lose. The team that's behind needs to make their 3 pointers, and if they shoot 60% they can win. But I think that overall the probabilities are well balanced as the rule stands.

Take away this argument, and what is the rationale for the rule change? To shorten games? But why shorten an exciting part of the game?

[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.

Nevada, how many fouls have you ever seen that fit this description in one game? I've never really seen more than 2 or 3 before it's either worked or they give up. Not much of an extra delay, really.