Phx-Suns.Net

The only way I could see this manipulated is, say you are daddy Ball. Your son could come out this year, but he would be drafted by the worst team in the Northeast, as they have the rotation on 1-5. You stay in another year, knowing that the Pacific is up next year and you don't have any competition for the #1 pick, and you also see that the Lakers will have it as they've sucked the worst.

Even then, there might be too many what if's to chance not coming out. Trades are still very well in play here too.

Hermen wrote:

Cap wrote:The purpose of intentional fouling is to keep the offense from dribbling out the shot clock. The way to eliminate the reward is to give the fouled team the option of forgoing the free throws, dribbling out the shot clock and accepting the 24-second violation. (If the shot clock is off and the offense has the lead, this means a shooting foul would end the game.) With that change, the only way for the D to get the ball back before the shot clock expires is to find a way to force a turnover without fouling.

I'm not convinced that the game-extending intentional fouls are such a detriment to the game that we need a radical rule change to eliminate them, but if you want to eliminate the reward for the practice, that's the simplest and most direct way to do it.

I don't really think my proposal is a radical change and I don't even mind the fouls all that much. But like I said I just don't think a foul should ever be considered a good play for a team.

I think all the rule changes being discussed are "radical" to one degree or another, though yours is nowhere near as radical as the sbnation one that started the discussion.

The problem with your proposal is that it wouldn't accomplish your stated goal of making the foul not a good play. You could still foul, try to force a turnover on the inbound play, and repeat until you succeed in forcing the turnover or they hit enough free throws that you give up. It might be tough to pull off a comeback that way, but it would be possible, and since the foul-to-stop-the-clock tactic is typically employed when there is no alternative, it's difficult to come up with a scenario in which fouling would be incentivized under existing rules but not under yours.

Hermen wrote:

Cap wrote:The purpose of intentional fouling is to keep the offense from dribbling out the shot clock. The way to eliminate the reward is to give the fouled team the option of forgoing the free throws, dribbling out the shot clock and accepting the 24-second violation. (If the shot clock is off and the offense has the lead, this means a shooting foul would end the game.) With that change, the only way for the D to get the ball back before the shot clock expires is to find a way to force a turnover without fouling.

I'm not convinced that the game-extending intentional fouls are such a detriment to the game that we need a radical rule change to eliminate them, but if you want to eliminate the reward for the practice, that's the simplest and most direct way to do it.

I don't really think my proposal is a radical change and I don't even mind the fouls all that much. But like I said I just don't think a foul should ever be considered a good play for a team.

I disagree. There has to be some gamble a team can take to try to salvage a win.

Cap wrote:... it's difficult to come up with a scenario in which fouling would be incentivized under existing rules but not under yours.

You're right.

Superbone wrote: I disagree. There has to be some gamble a team can take to try to salvage a win.

I'd prefer if they gambled on steals and 3pt bombing. The point in the article was that fouling almost never works and it is not worth delaying the game for such a long shot.

Hermen wrote:

Superbone wrote: I disagree. There has to be some gamble a team can take to try to salvage a win.

I'd prefer if they gambled on steals and 3pt bombing. The point in the article was that fouling almost never works and it is not worth delaying the game for such a long shot.

But when you're gambling on steals, you're going to foul. You also can't shoot a 3 when the other team has the ball. Doesn't seem right to allow them to run the shot clock out when you're desperate for points.

I remember playing madden when I was younger and if it was late in the game and the computer was going to run out the clock, you could commit an offsides penalty that would either stop the clock or reduce the play clock in some way. I don't remember the exact logistics, but it was a way to get the ball back when normally the opposing team would run the clock out. Fouling in the NBA feels a little like this to me. I'd much rather see teams play aggressive defense and force turnovers to try and come back.

Superbone wrote: But when you're gambling on steals, you're going to foul. You also can't shoot a 3 when the other team has the ball. Doesn't seem right to allow them to run the shot clock out when you're desperate for points.

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.
If you're down with 20 seconds to go, you hope you force a turnover and score. It's your fault you're losing. Making an illegal play should not give you more of a chance.

Hermen wrote:

Superbone wrote: But when you're gambling on steals, you're going to foul. You also can't shoot a 3 when the other team has the ball. Doesn't seem right to allow them to run the shot clock out when you're desperate for points.

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.
If you're down with 20 seconds to go, you hope you force a turnover and score. It's your fault you're losing. Making an illegal play should not give you more of a chance.

+1

Hermen wrote:

Superbone wrote: But when you're gambling on steals, you're going to foul. You also can't shoot a 3 when the other team has the ball. Doesn't seem right to allow them to run the shot clock out when you're desperate for points.

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.
If you're down with 20 seconds to go, you hope you force a turnover and score. It's your fault you're losing. Making an illegal play should not give you more of a chance.

It's not illegal. Make your free throws. Also, if you're trying to force turnovers, there's a good chance you're going to foul in the attempt.

Superbone wrote:

Hermen wrote:

Superbone wrote: But when you're gambling on steals, you're going to foul. You also can't shoot a 3 when the other team has the ball. Doesn't seem right to allow them to run the shot clock out when you're desperate for points.

The point for me is that fouling should not be a good outcome for the team that fouls. Fouls are actions that are against the rules and teams are punished for them. If they want to commit fouls then punishment needs to be greater.
If you're down with 20 seconds to go, you hope you force a turnover and score. It's your fault you're losing. Making an illegal play should not give you more of a chance.

It's not illegal. Make your free throws. Also, if you're trying to force turnovers, there's a good chance you're going to foul in the attempt.

It is against the rules, hence the punishment dolled out by the refs. I agree that you shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the rules.

I don't think they are going to get rid of the fouls at the ends of games because it allows them a chance to do a bunch of timeouts with commercials. The ad $$$ is huge there in the end of a big game that is close. Nobody can change the channel. The NBA has too much of a financial incentive to keep the end of the game the way it is.

That's probably true and I doubt they change it either. However, if there was a part of the game that turned off fans enough, they'd change it even if it meant a loss of revenue in the short run.

The most common reasons I hear from people who don't watch basketball are too many timeouts and the fouling at the end which extends games. I don't actually think that's what's keeping them from watching, those may be two of the more annoying things, but I doubt those things alone are keeping people from watching.

Those two reasons are from people that don't know anything about basketball. I hear the same from my wife, and she hates sports.

I'm with In2 on this one. If you want to take away the chance that a team can come back and win a close game because you just want the game to be over with, then you aren't into the game.

Those two reasons are from people that don't know anything about basketball. I hear the same from my wife, and she hates sports.

I know. My point was if the NBA thought they could add viewers by changing the foul rules, they would. But I agree that it's much more than fouls in the last two minutes that are keeping these people from watching basketball. Most likely, they just don't enjoy it.

O_Gardino wrote:I'm with In2 on this one. If you want to take away the chance that a team can come back and win a close game because you just want the game to be over with, then you aren't into the game.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we want is teams to actually make basketball plays to come back. Statistics show that the fouling to extend the game strategy almost never works, yet teams keep doing it because they don't feel like there is another option. I think playing aggressive defense and forcing turnovers might actually be more effective.

We accept the late game fouling because it's always been apart of the game, but imagine for a second that it never was. That teams always had the opportunity to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws. Then imagine the NBA changed the rule and said you had to shoot free throws. People would be up in arms about the rule and the late game fouling that would ensue.

The fact is, the offending team is the one who benefits from a play that is against the rules and that just seems backwards to me. If you can't get the lead in the first 47:45 you probably just don't deserve to win that night.

In reality, I'm not that opposed to late game fouling, I get why teams do it and I'd never turn a game off because of it. I'd be interested to see how successful teams would be if they didn't foul.

Obviously if you're down 1 with 10 seconds left, fouling is the smart play, but what if you're down 5 with 21 seconds left? What's more likely, forcing a turnover or the opposing team missing two free throws? I'd guess forcing a turnover is more likely, but if you fail to do so, you look stupid for not fouling. Which is why teams foul. You don't look stupid when the other team simply hits their free throws. Yet the result is the same.

Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

In2ition wrote:Aggressive defense, trying to force turnovers with a run & jump or trapping defense, take your pick, will cause just as many open layups and an unprotected basket if you are in the passing lanes. NBA players are too good and skilled for that tactic and strategy to work successfully. Sure, it could work in spurts or from time to time, but once teams are wise to what you are going to try to do at the end of games, they will exploit it. Ever wonder why NBA teams RARELY ever press? Because it's nearly impossible in the NBA against those guards. Sure, in college, high school, AAU or youth basketball it works often.

It's also nearly impossible to come back by fouling. I'd guess every team has someone who shoots free throws at a near 85% clip. So you're right, you're almost never going to trap Chris Paul, but he's also not going to miss his free throws. But could you trap J.J reddick?