Why not a dozen?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I like the idea I've heard floated around that you don't foul out the players at all ... but any foul over (5 in college, 6 in NBA) is a technical foul - 2 shots and the ball.

I works a men's wreck summer league that uses that very rule due to low numbers of players per team. I think it's fine for that scenario, but it is too radical a departure from the fundamental rules of the game for college or the NBE .

I think you would see excessive physical contact increase wherever that rule is applied...just my opinion. The 2 shot T would not be enough to deter some players from excessively hard fouls. Heck, fouling out doesn't even seem to deter some knuckleheads.

[dobbers]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I like the idea I've heard floated around that you don't foul out the players at all ... but any foul over (5 in college, 6 in NBA) is a technical foul - 2 shots and the ball.

Was that a rule in the 'ole ABA?

[BillyMac]

... and it seems like it only happened yesterday.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

because the NBA does have a very strong entertainment element to the game, I would enjoy (only) a 7th foul for games that go to OT.

What would you do with this game?

ESPN Classic - Celtics in Land of the Suns after triple OT win

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by dobbers

Was that a rule in the 'ole ABA?

I can't give an answer about the ABA, but the NBA uses a rule similar to what has been mentioned -- but only when a player fouls out and there are no more eligible substitutes.

Unlike NFHS and NCAA, the NBA does not allow a team to compete with fewer than 5 players in the game. So when a player fouls out and all other team members have been DQ'd or are unavailable due to injury, the player who has fouled out is allowed to stay in the game (I believe), but any future fouls he commits carry the double penalty.

Forget what I think. Here's the rule, from NBA.com:

Rule 3, Section 1:

Section I-Team
a. Each team shall consist of five players. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been disqualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.

b. In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re-entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul.

[fortmoney]

I guess I never really paid much attention before I started officiating but it is extremely painful to be the lone voice of reason among my friends and the people on TV. And its all sports, not just basketball. I've rarely seen sports bring out the best of people, but it almost always brings out the worst

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Players don't even foul out that often as it is. You only hear of this when a SUPERSTAR fouls out during a playoff game or during the tournament.

There. Fixed it for you.

I suppose any player who fouls out during regulation would then be allowed to return in OT, since he he now has another foul to give?

Good grief.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by dobbers

Was that a rule in the 'ole ABA?

Unless I mistaken, I believe the ABA allowed 6 fouls and the NBA adopted it when the NBA ate the ABA.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Unless I mistaken, I believe the ABA allowed 6 fouls and the NBA adopted it when the NBA ate the ABA.

Which makes Wilt's feat of never fouling out even more remarkable.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Which makes Wilt's feat of never fouling out even more remarkable.

How about his feat of having slept with more than 20,000 women? That's not remarkable?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by fortmoney

I guess I never really paid much attention before I started officiating but it is extremely painful to be the lone voice of reason among my friends and the people on TV. And its all sports, not just basketball.

Welcome to the club.

I've had the "that was the right call"/"the officials aren't corrupt" discussions many times before, with friends, family, you name it. And, I'll have them again.

You will be scoffed, and you will be dismissed as "defending the refs." However, if you don't say anything to counter their excessive emotion over logic, they'll only continue believing the myths. That's far worse, IMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Welcome to the club.

I've had the "that was the right call"/"the officials aren't corrupt" discussions many times before, with friends, family, you name it. And, I'll have them again.

You will be scoffed, and you will be dismissed as "defending the refs." However, if you don't say anything to counter their excessive emotion over logic, they'll only continue believing the myths. That's far worse, IMO.

I think most of us have had these conversations. But watch out for the "I ref too" claims. You know the guy that has not officiated in several years, but only worked some intramural games while in college but somehow knows what an NBA official does at it relates to their training and background?

Quick very funny story. The other day I was having one of these discussions during one of the playoff games on FB. And I was talking on my friend's site with one of his friends and in the discussion of calling the officials corrupt, he mentioned that he officiated. Come to find out it was not for two years. This friend of my friend also claimed he was taught something at a clinic where I am on the committee for the state. Then when I asked him to be more specific and tell me who taught him a particular philosophy, he clearly started to back away when I told him exactly who I was and what my background was with the conference he was referencing. The guy was clearly caught in a lie and then tried to back off by saying, "Well I heard what I heard……blahblahblah." He obviously use the "I officiate" because he thought I would be impressed and take his words for it and just either agree with his claims or not call him on what he decided to divulge.

But that is what we go through with people when they know you are an official.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I almost hurled the remote at the TV when I heard that one...Instead of getting an OPEN shot with a beautiful fake (which he did), these two geniuses advocate trying to draw a marginal, B.S. foul to win or tie by "jumping into" the defender. Had the shot gone in...these two would be babbling on and on about Wade doing the right thing...a brilliant decision...big time player...blah, blah, blah.

Between them and JVG's complete ignorance of ANYTHING related to the rules, I find myself talking to (yelling at) the TV more and more. My wife thinks I'm losing it. Next game will be watched with the volume off.

Hmmm, I have never seen JVG play, but I have seen Magic play a game or two...or a thousand! Although he may be wrong on this one, and he is not the most eloquent speaker, but he is Magic Johnson for crying out loud!

I think Pierce's sixth foul was an easy call. I wish they would have shown an angle similar to Crawford's on LeBron's sixth foul. It looks like he was moving backwards and could have pinned the defender's arm.

[APG]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Hmmm, I have never seen JVG play, but I have seen Magic play a game or two...or a thousand! Although he may be wrong on this one, and he is not the most eloquent speaker, but he is Magic Johnson for crying out loud!

I think Pierce's sixth foul was an easy call. I wish they would have shown an angle similar to Crawford's on LeBron's sixth foul. It looks like he was moving backwards and could have pinned the defender's arm.

I wish they showed an alternate angle on LeBron's sixth foul as well...I also thought that LeBron clamped the defender's left arm, but an opposite angle shot would have shown that best.

[JRutledge]

I agree that angle would be better, but you can tell that LBJ took his body to move his defender to the floor. Yes there was some arm contact by the defender, but he was put in a helpless position by the body movement alone to the floor. You have bodies on the floor; you better know how they got there. Joey saw that entire play by his positioning and his angle and got the call right. The media is just stupid as hell and they apparently want a gun to be used before someone can be called for a foul. But if little contact on near the basket takes place and the shooter is "hit" no matter how legal the defender is, they want every little foul to be called. Or they complain if the right person does not get a foul call. Sports media are the most inept group of people in all of media. I see political media people point out the smallest inconsistency in a claim and the sports media cannot look at a rulebook or the box score and see how stupid these claims they make. They are just plain lazy.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree that angle would be better, but you can tell that LBJ took his body to move his defender to the floor. Yes there was some arm contact by the defender, but he was put in a helpless position by the body movement alone to the floor. You have bodies on the floor; you better know how they got there. Joey saw that entire play by his positioning and his angle and got the call right. The media is just stupid as hell and they apparently want a gun to be used before someone can be called for a foul. But if little contact on near the basket takes place and the shooter is "hit" no matter how legal the defender is, they want every little foul to be called. Or they complain if the right person does not get a foul call. Sports media are the most inept group of people in all of media. I see political media people point out the smallest inconsistency in a claim and the sports media cannot look at a rulebook or the box score and see how stupid these claims they make. They are just plain lazy.

Peace

Some of them try (IMO Elmore, Fraschilla, Kellogg to a certain extent). Others are just there to be heard. I work in the media - and for a while I worked in sports media - so it really drives me crazy when they screw stuff up.

Stephen Bardo (ESPN) called me a "hater" because I pointed out some rule screwups he made on his Twitter page. I said it's not hating, it's providing knowledge.