"Fouling Out" - the affect on the integrity of basketball

[LetsGoHawks83]

What's everyones opinion on this? Why has the NIT post season never experimented with the elimination of players "fouling out"?

Refs eliminating players from basketball games for common fouls and the effect that has on the integrity of a game is ridiculous.

Not saying Iowa wins tonight without this rule and Iowa has benefited from other teams players getting in foul trouble. But why have this additional way that refs can GREATLY affect the outcome of a game?

https://syndication.bleacherreport....ffect-on-the-integrity-of-basketball.amp.html

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

Also, we've all seen those double OT games occur where a hard fought game is suddenly being decided by the waterboys for both teams.

Anyway we can help the PLAYERS decide the outcome, I'm all for!

 

[HawkDoc1]

What's everyones opinion on this? Why has the NIT post season never experimented with the elimination of players "fouling out"?

Refs eliminating players from basketball games for common fouls and the effect that has on the integrity of a game is ridiculous.

Not saying Iowa wins tonight without this rule and Iowa has benefited from other teams players getting in foul trouble. But why have this additional way that refs can GREATLY affect the outcome of a game?

https://syndication.bleacherreport....ffect-on-the-integrity-of-basketball.amp.html

Decourcey has written extensively on this. Essentially being expelled from the remainder of the game is the strongest motivator against fouling, much more so than even conceding two free throws in the double bonus. No one wants to watch more free throws.

I would potentially be in favor of giving all non-eliminated players another foul at the beginning of overtime and with the beginning of every other overtime thereafter (I.e, the third, fifth, etc.)

 

[HIWB]

Fouling out has been part of the game since Naismith wrote the rules. The integrity of the game is fine.

 

[pocha444444]

Fouling out has been part of the game since Naismith wrote the rules. The integrity of the game is fine.

I doubt Naismith could have ever predicted the incompetent refs of today, however.

 

[Rifler]

Having a foul limit prior to ejection is a foundational element of the game and probably the best tool we have for promoting clean play,... You don't want to get rid of this.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

No, please.

Fouling out is an important deterrent to fouling. I want fewer fouls, not more fouls.

Oh, and refs today are absolutely competent. In fact, they are some of the best at their craft in the entire world. But they are faced with an incredibly difficult task.

 

[anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba]

Having a foul limit prior to ejection is a foundational element of the game and probably the best tool we have for promoting clean play,... You don't want to get rid of this.

Have you watched basketball lately? "Clean play?" Seriously?

Naismith invented a noncontact game of finesse that is now played like indoor rugby more often than not. Five fouls was plenty--is plenty--if the teams are playing basketball, but not when it's rugby.

And please, at least two of Garza's fouls last night were nothing compared to dozens of incidents of hard contact, indisputable hard contact, that were NOT called fouls.

The five foul limit has had no impact on the way Michigan State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, et. al play the game. They mug everyone all the time and get away with most of it.

By calling those "fouls" on Garza and Kreiner last night, the officials gave the game to Maryland. Simple as that.

"Clean play" is a dream. The game today is nothing like Naismith intended. And I'm pretty sure he didn't build a weight room next to his basketball court. LOL

 

[Titanhawk2]

Yes, let's promote not playing by the rules by letting them foul more

 

[fivecardstud14]

Decourcey has written extensively on this. Essentially being expelled from the remainder of the game is the strongest motivator against fouling, much more so than even conceding two free throws in the double bonus. No one wants to watch more free throws.

I would potentially be in favor of giving all non-eliminated players another foul at the beginning of overtime and with the beginning of every other overtime thereafter (I.e, the third, fifth, etc.)

That's a good idea, I'm on board.
Definitely better than some stupid comment like "well it's always been that way so that's the way it is."

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

I doubt Naismith could have ever predicted the incompetent refs of today, however.

The "game" was also played at a completely different speed when Naismith wrote the rules. Did he have a rule about dunking? Shot clock? Instant replay?

It's obviously been discussed by sports writers. Has NCAA or NBA ever seriously discussed?

I'm just saying I enjoy when they test rule changes in the NIT. I'd like to see the 5th foul+ on a player result in 2 shots and the ball. I'm pretty sure that would still be enough deterrent for individual players to not rack up fouls.

TEAMS could then decide if they want to play their star player (Garza) with 5 fouls and risk a foul call on him giving FTs and the ball to the other team.

 

[trippnschmidt]

That's a good idea, I'm on board.
Definitely better than some stupid comment like "well it's always been that way so that's the way it is."

Ok chief. Let's have 5 pt shots. How about eliminating dribbling. Maybe lower the basket to 8 feet?

 

[HawkRugged17]

The "game" was also played at a completely different speed when Naismith wrote the rules. Did he have a rule about dunking? Shot clock? Instant replay?

It's obviously been discussed by sports writers. Has NCAA or NBA ever seriously discussed?

I'm just saying I enjoy when they test rule changes in the NIT. I'd like to see the 5th foul+ on a player result in 2 shots and the ball. I'm pretty sure that would still be enough deterrent for individual players to not rack up fouls.

TEAMS could then decide if they want to play their star player (Garza) with 5 fouls and risk a foul call on him giving FTs and the ball to the other team.

The old ABA used to have the no foul out rule ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/07/...new-rule-no-more-foul-outs-fouls-inhibit.html

Recently I had a long talk with Kevin Loughery, the coach of the New York Nets in the A.B.A. Kevin told me how the rule works. If a player —say, Julius Erving—commits his sixth foul, he can stay in the game. For every foul Erving may commit after the sixth, the other team gets a foul shot and keeps possession of the ball even after the shot. So Erving can cost the Nets a lot of points if he keeps fouling. But at least the Nets can keep Erving—their best player—in the game.

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

No need for name calling, but there was a time without a 3 point shot too. Changes like that seem much bigger to me.

I don't think adjusting the "foul out" rule would suddenly ruin the game. Just wanted to see what others though of this. And what are the PROS to the rule other that "it's always been that way"?

I agree that it is a way to deter fouling. But if a player gets one or two questionable fouls called, suddenly they are hamstrung.

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

The old ABA used to have the no foul out rule ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/07/...new-rule-no-more-foul-outs-fouls-inhibit.html

Recently I had a long talk with Kevin Loughery, the coach of the New York Nets in the A.B.A. Kevin told me how the rule works. If a player —say, Julius Erving—commits his sixth foul, he can stay in the game. For every foul Erving may commit after the sixth, the other team gets a foul shot and keeps possession of the ball even after the shot. So Erving can cost the Nets a lot of points if he keeps fouling. But at least the Nets can keep Erving—their best player—in the game.

Awesome. I'll have to read this. Thanks for sharing!

 

[fivecardstud14]

Ok chief. Let's have 5 pt shots. How about eliminating dribbling. Maybe lower the basket to 8 feet?

Derp

 

[pocha444444]

Ok chief. Let's have 5 pt shots. How about eliminating dribbling. Maybe lower the basket to 8 feet?

Dumb response.

 

[RocknRollface]

Decourcey has written extensively on this. Essentially being expelled from the remainder of the game is the strongest motivator against fouling, much more so than even conceding two free throws in the double bonus. No one wants to watch more free throws.

I would potentially be in favor of giving all non-eliminated players another foul at the beginning of overtime and with the beginning of every other overtime thereafter (I.e, the third, fifth, etc.)

Exactly, and it won't be just more free throws.

The reffs will adjust to allow more and more contact because they don't want to call a foul every play and you'd be back to games that look like football.

 

[anon_gjzkhykcp9iuj]

Overreaction to a loss. Which hurts integrity of game more....fouling guys over and over so they actually cannot play their game, or eliminating a player that exhibits the aforementioned behavior? Fouling over and over (breaking rules) to prevent another player or team from doing what they need to is far worse. If a player doesn't want to be removed from the game, then don't break the rules over and over and over. It's a really simple rule, put in place for a really simple reason, and it is effective and should stay that way. An instance that doesn't go your way should not be justification for removal of a completely logical and justified rule.

 

[HIWB]

That's a good idea, I'm on board.
Definitely better than some stupid comment like "well it's always been that way so that's the way it is."

Nothing like changing the rules of the game because we don’t like a recent outcome.
Refs have always been terrible. I bet even Mr Naismith has a few stories he could share.
You fix the root cause - refs. You don’t change the game.

 

[Ronman]

If officials were consistent from game to game, or even half to half, (not to mention team to team), I don't think you would hear much bitching. But we've all watched games where we had no particular rooting interest and watched one team benefit from the calls throughout the game. This is unacceptable and rather suspicious.

 

[fivecardstud14]

Nothing like changing the rules of the game because we don’t like a recent outcome.
Refs have always been terrible. I bet even Mr Naismith has a few stories he could share.
You fix the root cause - refs. You don’t change the game.

Lol I didn't say that because of last nights game. Nothing like jumping to conclusions more than Tom Smykowski.

I've been an advocate for 8 fouls for years. College refs love blowing their whistle for anticipating the foul. I've never liked being eliminated from the game because of fouls.

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

I just posted on another thread (double foul) that players be allowed 6 fouls, before being disqualified. It would be simple and IMO would have more benefit that detriment to the game.

 

[HIWB]

Lol I didn't say that because of last nights game. Nothing like jumping to conclusions more than Tom Smykowski.

I've been an advocate for 8 fouls for years. College refs love blowing their whistle for anticipating the foul. I've never liked being eliminated from the game because of fouls.

then fix the refs. 8 fouls will just mean more fouls and a slower game.

 

[Hawk24]

IMHO, the key to creating a more watchable basketball product long-term is to call more fouls and have more guys foul out....at least in the beginning. The games would be brutal to watch for a while but players and coaches would be forced to adjust and you'd start to see a less physical game fairly quickly.

The teams that play football defense such as Michigan St. know that refs aren't going to call all the fouls that they actually commit so they keep pushing and pushing to see what they can get away with. Start calling them on their bullshit and have a few guys foul out early in the second half of games and you'd start to see some adjustments made to style of play.

 

[SSG T]

Have you watched basketball lately? "Clean play?" Seriously?

Naismith invented a noncontact game of finesse that is now played like indoor rugby more often than not. Five fouls was plenty--is plenty--if the teams are playing basketball, but not when it's rugby.

And please, at least two of Garza's fouls last night were nothing compared to dozens of incidents of hard contact, indisputable hard contact, that were NOT called fouls.

The five foul limit has had no impact on the way Michigan State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, et. al play the game. They mug everyone all the time and get away with most of it.

By calling those "fouls" on Garza and Kreiner last night, the officials gave the game to Maryland. Simple as that.

"Clean play" is a dream. The game today is nothing like Naismith intended. And I'm pretty sure he didn't build a weight room next to his basketball court. LOL

I wouldn't go so far to advocate getting rid of fouling out. However, this is pretty much in line with my thoughts on the game. Just like baseball is nothing like the game of the late 1800s and football is nothing like the game the last time the Clones won a championship, basketball is nothing like Naismith envisioned. To say "Naismith put it in, so it's part of the integrity of the game" is frankly, malarkey. Originally, you could hit a runner with a baseball to get them out...yeah, let's go back to that.

IIRC, originally, in basketball you weren't allowed to dribble? So...Harden violates the integrity of the game every time he touches the ball? j/k, don't answer that...

 

[Douglas C. Neidermeyer]

I just posted on another thread (double foul) that players be allowed 6 fouls, before being disqualified. It would be simple and IMO would have more benefit that detriment to the game.

Big East experimented with 6 fouls in early 90s. https://johngasaway.com/2019/01/07/...asts-1990s-era-experiment-with-six-fouls/amp/

 

[Rifler]

Have you watched basketball lately? "Clean play?" Seriously?

Naismith invented a noncontact game of finesse that is now played like indoor rugby more often than not. Five fouls was plenty--is plenty--if the teams are playing basketball, but not when it's rugby.

And please, at least two of Garza's fouls last night were nothing compared to dozens of incidents of hard contact, indisputable hard contact, that were NOT called fouls.

The five foul limit has had no impact on the way Michigan State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, et. al play the game. They mug everyone all the time and get away with most of it.

By calling those "fouls" on Garza and Kreiner last night, the officials gave the game to Maryland. Simple as that.

"Clean play" is a dream. The game today is nothing like Naismith intended. And I'm pretty sure he didn't build a weight room next to his basketball court. LOL

The solution to the problem you describe is to do a better job of educating and monitoring the officials,... Not to turn the game over to thuggery...

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Maybe there is middle ground.

Proposal:

• No player is eliminated for too many fouls; however
• Every personal foul beyond 5 results in the other team automatically getting:
  • 4 free throws if it is a defensive foul; or
  • 2 free throws if it is an offensive foul

I agree that there needs to be a deterrent from excessive fouling. If you completely remove disqualification for excessive fouls, there will essentially be nothing to deter teams from fouling on every layup/dunk attempt they can contest. In general, I'm fine with disqualification after 5 fouls, but I also see the argument that disqualification can sometimes be too harsh of a penalty. The proposal above is intended to retain "foul trouble" being a real thing, but also prevent the game's best players being relegated to the bench based on questionable calls.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Decourcey has written extensively on this. Essentially being expelled from the remainder of the game is the strongest motivator against fouling, much more so than even conceding two free throws in the double bonus. No one wants to watch more free throws.

I would potentially be in favor of giving all non-eliminated players another foul at the beginning of overtime and with the beginning of every other overtime thereafter (I.e, the third, fifth, etc.)

I would agree with the idea of giving players an extra foul once overtime begins, but not for every subsequent overtime period.

Remember the point of overtime is still to decide a winner, and giving players extra fouls can also have a potentially adverse effect of extending games, which is not the intent of overtime, even if it is a great game.

 

[HawkRugged17]

I would agree with the idea of giving players an extra foul once overtime begins, but not for every subsequent overtime period.

Remember the point of overtime is still to decide a winner, and giving players extra fouls can also have a potentially adverse effect of extending games, which is not the intent of overtime, even if it is a great game.

Interesting ... like dodgeball players getting back in when someone catches a ball. Overtime happens ... and someone who has fouled out gets back in and has one more foul. There could be some strategy happening there.

 

[littlez]

So much talk about Wisconsin fouling, etc. Look, the refs called 28 fouls on them the other night. We shot 32 free throws, and they shot 11. They were fouling like crazy and they were calling it, plain and simple. Conference games get physical, players are bigger and faster than ever. It's not easy to do a game w/teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc. We know Luka needs to stay in the game. W/him playing limited minutes we aren't going to win many. We had a nice winning streak. We were on the road against a tough opponent, and we were the underdog. I'd say the game played out kind of like a lot of us expected. But then again we have a lot of conspiracy theory people on here who seem to think the refs are out to screw somebody every game. I'm not in that corner.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

I just posted on another thread (double foul) that players be allowed 6 fouls, before being disqualified. It would be simple and IMO would have more benefit that detriment to the game.

nah, 5 is more than enough.

I'd be for giving them an extra foul in OT games though. I think it's dumb they leave it at 5 when they increase the play time.

 

[kceasthawk]

Overreaction to a loss. Which hurts integrity of game more....fouling guys over and over so they actually cannot play their game, or eliminating a player that exhibits the aforementioned behavior? Fouling over and over (breaking rules) to prevent another player or team from doing what they need to is far worse. If a player doesn't want to be removed from the game, then don't break the rules over and over and over. It's a really simple rule, put in place for a really simple reason, and it is effective and should stay that way. An instance that doesn't go your way should not be justification for removal of a completely logical and justified rule.

The problem with that, is often not about a player breaking "rules" as it is about the horrendously inconsistant way the rules are applied. Garza has played "this way" all season, (and its made him one of the top players in the nation), and in this game he gets two quick early ridiculous fouls and is basically eliminated for half the game. If he's been playing that way for 20 games, how is it as simple as "he's breaking the rules" as you suggest?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Interesting ... like dodgeball players getting back in when someone catches a ball. Overtime happens ... and someone who has fouled out gets back in and has one more foul. There could be some strategy happening there.

That would have to be a discussion point before such a rule is made.

Would they want players who have fouled out to be given a second chance with an extra foul and be allowed back in, or would they only add the extra foul to eligible players going into overtime?

That's probably one of the biggest talking points that would go into that.

 

[HawkDoc1]

I would agree with the idea of giving players an extra foul once overtime begins, but not for every subsequent overtime period.

Remember the point of overtime is still to decide a winner, and giving players extra fouls can also have a potentially adverse effect of extending games, which is not the intent of overtime, even if it is a great game.

To be clear, I’d give them an extra foul at the start of the first overtime , third, fifth, seventh, etc. You receive five personal fouls for 40 minutes of regulation, or one per 8 minutes. This would be adding a foul every ten minutes added to the game. Once disqualified, you can not be reinstated.

 

[Sivert]

I like the idea of an extra foul per player in OT, which might allow players to return.
And here’s an idea: triple-bonus.
7 fouls one-and-one
10 fouls two FTs
16 fouls two FTs and possession.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

What's everyones opinion on this? Why has the NIT post season never experimented with the elimination of players "fouling out"?

Refs eliminating players from basketball games for common fouls and the effect that has on the integrity of a game is ridiculous.

Not saying Iowa wins tonight without this rule and Iowa has benefited from other teams players getting in foul trouble. But why have this additional way that refs can GREATLY affect the outcome of a game?

https://syndication.bleacherreport....ffect-on-the-integrity-of-basketball.amp.html

Can you imagine how many FT Ethan happ would have shot if this rule existed?

I'd foul him every single time they touched the ball!

"Wisconsin loses 31-84 thanks to 58 missed free throws"

 

[BaldHawk4Life]

I didn’t read all of the responses but here is an example of why...

I coached a basketball team several years ago where we were a good FT shooting team but struggled from the line for 3 straight games. We played a playoff game against a really bad team whose entire strategy was to foul hard, deliberate, and as soon as we took possession. We shot 30 FTs in the first half. Dude used his entire bench and we continued to press until he backed off. Blowout game... but could have resulted in serious injury, horrible for fans to watch. This rule needs to be there to prevent this.

 

[walleye hunter16]

I just posted on another thread (double foul) that players be allowed 6 fouls, before being disqualified. It would be simple and IMO would have more benefit that detriment to the game.

Nope.