If I could change one rule, it would be....

[Eastshire]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in on late-game fouling.

The one major thing missed in the discussion is that for one year the Fed did change its mind about the strategy. We had the PoE in the early '00s that included the famous any foul after the coach says "Foul 'em" is intentional line. That experiment lasted one year and the PoEs given earlier returned things to their normal state.

Personally, I find the fouling strategy at best poorly conceived and at worst unsportsmanlike. But, fortunately, no one gave me the job of making the rules. What I don't understand is why they don't try to steal the ball instead of just fouling.

My personal approach when the defense is attempting to foul late in the game is to call any contact when the offense is not trying to avoid it. When the offense is trying to avoid being fouled, it has to actually be a foul, i.e. the offensive player must be put at a disadvantage.

I think Rich is right that borderline contact should be favored for a foul in this situation for player safety, but at the same time we must be careful not to but the offensive team at a disadvantage by calling fouls that aren't there.

And yes, the defensive team is getting an advantage by fouling or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

My preferred solution is a change in the rules that would make the strategy less likely to work for the defense. Something is wrong with the rules when the best chance to win is to intentionally break the rules. I think the idea of a triple bonus floated earlier has some merit.