That would make the game last just as long as awarding three FTs and the team could only score no more than two points.

MTD, Sr.

I am curious about the history of this rule. What situation back in the day created an advantage for a team so much so that they had to make a rule about it? Anyone know?

+1

Just another talking head trying to look smart. No different IMO when an official makes a close call (usually block/charge). After which they look at 16 replays in slow motion (from 10 camera angles), and the annoucers talk about how that was a bad call. In all fairness we do this every day on here. Except we us these situations as a teaching/discussion tool. Not for ripping someone who just made a judgment call in a split second. These guys are why I have a mute button and a DVR.

I think the purpose of the idea is to discourage teams from fouling at the end of a game that is out of reach. That would cut the game length. In my opinion, 3 points unbalances the game too much to be worthy of consideration. But if they really want to go a route like this, giving the offended team an extra chance to make a second point seems reasonable.

And for the record, I don't think any change is really necessary. "Solution in search of a problem" is probably pretty accurate.

Also, my guess is that this is coming from somebody who watches mostly D-I games that are televised. It's the same people who wanted to shorten the length of football games. The problem isn't the game...it's all the stinking TV timeouts. Before the new NCAA timing rules in football, I was going to D-III games that were over in 2.5 hours. Amazingly, the timing rules were changed and we are still seeing 3.5 hour football games on television. The broadcasters just used the extra time taken from the game to add more commercials.

Best. Comment. Ever.

A return to three for two (well the NBA had it) ? What's next, bringing back the foul paddles? Two shots for a backcourt foul?

Instead of awarding more FTs or awarding FTs and possession after a certain number of fouls has been reached, how about an NFL-style "10-second runoff" after the 12th or 15th foul or whatever.

(10 seconds might be too much, but 5 or 3 seconds would still be a deterrent, I would think.)

That would lead to teams to start fouling earlier.

I think it would be a decent idea, if it was a problem that needed solving.