Nope, 5 is like 15 already for some players.
The extra cost for more fouls as in shots or losing possession is a thought though.
"Fouling Out" - the affect on the integrity of basketball
- Thread starter LetsGoHawks83
- Start date
The extra cost for more fouls as in shots or losing possession is a thought though.
We should get rid of the 3pt basket, too.
Never part of the original Naismith rules.
Oh...and shot-clock. Need more games like IA-MSU, 8-6 at halftime....
We should get rid of the 3pt basket, too.
Never part of the original Naismith rules.
Oh...and shot-clock. Need more games like IA-MSU, 8-6 at halftime....
do you think the integrity of the game is hurt by only allowing 5 fouls?
The addition of the shot clock, and faster paced game has increased the likelihood of fouls, as compared with the slower, no shot clock game of decades ago.
I agree w/ adding a foul for OT games. They could also experiment with eliminating foul limits altogether, but for every foul >5, the team fouled gets an extra free throw.
10th foul on your guy = 5 FTs for the opposition. You can keep him in, but his extra fouls are gonna cost you a lot of points...
Do you think the integrity of the game is hurt by adding in shot clocks and 3 pt lines?
I get that you think you’re being clever with this, but it’s not complicated. No. Neither are dunks, 20 second time outs, nor water boys.
The point is that fouling out has nothing to do with the number of fouls and everything to do with the refs calling them, as I detailed in two subsequent responses if you cared to read that far.
And Still waiting for your answer.
Huh?
Faster-paced game = higher likelihood of fouls called
Replay = higher likelihood of fouls called
Changing a TF to a common foul counting against a player = higher likelihood of fouling out
Nothing to do with "the integrity of the game" here. Other changes made to the rules are making fouls more common, and more likely for players to foul out. Nothing about adjusting 'fouling out' rules has anything to do with "the integrity of the game". Your question/supposition is nonsensical.
The title of the thread indicates fouling out is affecting the integrity of the game.
Again...Do you agree or disagree?
Again: fouling out likelihoods are in part due to other changes made that have increased the pace of the game.
Considering rule adjustments makes sense.
If people are questioning that fouling out is impacting the game integrity, then you'd logically have to assert the other changes made have also impacted the integrity.
Having star players not in the game at crunch time certainly makes the game less enjoyable for lots of fans.
well you came closer this time to answering. Thank you.
But the notion of not fouling out seems more likely to affect the integrity of the game than adding fouls and not fixing the root cause...putting more pressure on the NCAA about the quality of referees and their tendency to control the outcome.
Well, I agree there are people that believe in the conspiracy theories but I don't.
We see on a regular basis that the job is soooo tough but they are the ones that can control that. It's clearly not easy but thats not an excuse for anyone for what you see happen on the court.
Your post proves the point, a bunch of fouls were called and there were STILL a ton not called. Why?
Because its a learned behavior in that you can get away with it. They know straight up they can't be competitive so they have to do what they can to even the field.
Allowing that to happen is EXACTLY what the refs are there to prevent. We all know humans have biases and all they can do is their best to leave that outside but we have all witnessed games and people where its obviously an issue.
Thats not a conspiracy they have to cause someone to lose but its not doing whats right by their position either. They are given a very high authority and regardless of whether they feel bad for a guy fouling out or not wanting "to affect the game" its what they are there for.
I would not say its an easy job but I will say they can do a much better job and the only people to be looked at to do so is themselves as it's completely in their hands.
IMO, they have been told to interject far too much analysis into the job.
For example Ruevers smashed Garza in the face going for the rebound. Well he fouled him because he didn't control his body on the play, period. If you want to go after him thinking he was taking a shot is another story. Garza gets called for a moving pick, okay I'll go with it because it is in the book that way but where is the other 20 that happened in that game? They weren't fouls because they didn't mean to but Garza did?
Late in the Terps game their guy gets nailed for grabbing CJ off a pick. They did that to JW and CJ all game. Come on, call it all the time so the players can adjust to the calls.
I don't like the players overreacting and the like but its really something the refs need to look in the mirror at.
Did the 'slow down' game of the 1970s impact 'the integrity of the game'?
The 8-6 MSU/IA halftime game?
Where teams could just hold the ball for 5+ minutes to take the last shot?
Four Corners offense?
Because fans didn't like that style of play "adjustment", and we implemented the shot clock.
Maybe Naismith thought that style of play was just fine. Certainly a lot safer for players than continual fast-break points.
Now, with the faster game pace, TFs as regular, shot clock increasing the number of offensive chances, fouls naturally "go up", and we haven't made any effort to address or question whether the same foul rules should be in place.
It is a legitimate question, whether you agree with changes or not. Keeping marquee players in the game at the end only increases the excitement. Implementing an extra penalty, such as extra FTs for fouls >5 increases the risk to the team with high foulers.
