Basketball Rule Change Idea

[RedsManRick]

So I know this is the "Non-Sports Chatter" board, but I have an idea for basketball and wasn't sure where else I'd put it.

The scenario: When teams are in the "bonus", they currently get two free throws when fouled. If the 2nd FT is made, possession changes. If they are fouled while shooting and make the shot, they get an extra FT and then possession changes. If the shot is missed, they get a number of FT equal to the value of the shot being attempted.

(Note: If the last FT is missed, the defensive team gets the rebound 90%+ of the time, so I'm not bothering counting that possibility as the effect is minimal)

Assuming an average of 75% FT shooting, a bonus foul makes the possession worth 1.5 points on average, more than the average possession which is worth about 1 point. If fouled while making the shot, they get an obvious advantage of an extra .75 points.

The problem:
1.) The "Hack-a-Shaq" scenaior in which a given player's inability to shoot free throws makes him a liability, allowing the defense to easily dictate the offense's opportunities (without requiring skill to do so) and to do so in a way which lowers the average value of the offensive team's possession.
2.) It artificially caps the possible points for the possession at 2 except in the rare event in which the guy is attempting a 3 pointer. Particularly at the very end of games, a team with a lead can protect it's lead by purposefully fouling and essentially negating the the possibility of a 3 point play.
3.) Similarly, a team trying to come from behind can purposefully foul, stopping the clock and getting them the ball, trading what is likely a few extra points for a number of extra possessions in which they can score and have a greater chance of coming back.

All of these scenarios have one common problem: Breaking the rules should not provide the fouling team an advantage. Combine #1 and #3 and you have a real problem where a player who is very good at the core of the sport becomes a detriment to his team. It would be like allowing a team in baseball to trade an inning for a HR derby; which would clearly be unfair against a team built around pitching, defense and small ball.

My proposal: If a player is fouled while in the bonus or fouled while attempting a shot that he misses, he gets one free throw and his team retains possession of the ball.

The average "foul" possession now because worth more -- 1.75 points, creating a stronger disincentive to foul. It also takes away the circumstances at the end of the game in which fouling is advantageous.

Not only is this more fair because it prevents teams from abusing a supposed penalty to gain an advantage, but it would also improve the game aesthetically by basically eliminating the horribly painful sequence at the end of many basketball games where the last 3 minutes take 30 minutes of real time due to all the fouls.

What do you guys think? Could I be on to something?

[Caveat Emperor]

I like the rule change -- my only addition would be I would make all fouls in the bonus (or while shooting) a 1 + Option (v. 1-1) where the shooting team would have the option of taking the second free throw (and conceding possession) or skipping the second free throw and taking the ball on the inbound.

The problem with the rule-change you've got is that it allows a team protecting a 1 or 2 point lead with time expiring to maul a guy coming down the lane, knowing he's only going to get 1 shot with possibly no (or very little) time left on the clock to get off a good shot on the extra possession. If the shooting team has the option of taking the 2nd shot (v. taking the ball) they can go for the tie or win at the stripe.

[Sea Ray]

The foul rule is one of the things that's caused me not to follow basketball because I guess I don't get it for the reasons you mentioned. I imagine the BB purists will tell you that the current rules make the game more exciting and allows for comebacks. If that's the case, I'd propose that a fouled team gets 3 FT chances to make 2.

[texasdave]

Sports is all about exploiting the other team's weakness. I see nothing wrong with fouling and making the other team make its free throws.

1) Would this proposed rule change be in effect the entire game or just say(and I am throwing this number out there) the last five minutes of the game? I can't imagine that if a foul is committed against a shooter in the first minute of the game is somehow trying to circumvent any rules. And for the record, I don't think fouling on purpose is 'breaking the rules'. Of course, that is a matter of interpretation.
2) If the team gets to retain the ball do they get an entirely new shot clock or does time pick up from when the foul was committed?

IMO, if this rule is put into effect there are going to be a lot more boring basketball games. OTOH, a number of people feel that parades to the free throw line are boring.

[Sea Ray]

I'd say only the bonus FTs would be affected so it's never going to be an issue of the first minute of the game. Every time a new possession is awarded a new shot clock goes along with it

What makes this part of BB unique is that it's often advantageous for a team to foul and that seems counter to most sports

[texasdave]

I'd say only the bonus FTs would be affected so it's never going to be an issue of the first minute of the game. Every time a new possession is awarded a new shot clock goes along with it

What makes this part of BB unique is that it's often advantageous for a team to foul and that seems counter to most sports


My proposal: If a player is fouled while in the bonus or fouled while attempting a shot that he misses, he gets one free throw and his team retains possession of the ball.

The second part of his proposal can happen quite often in the first minute of a game.

[Sea Ray]

The second part of his proposal can happen quite often in the first minute of a game.

Absolutely. IMO, if this rule is going to happen, it should be in effect for the whole game with the idea that the fouling team is at greater risk by commiting the foul. As it is right now, the fouling team is risking very little more than the two points that were being attempted to begin with.

[Caveat Emperor]

Sports is all about exploiting the other team's weakness. I see nothing wrong with fouling and making the other team make its free throws.

Yeah, but other than the 15yd PI rule in college football (where you can tackle a dude who has busted the coverage 30 yards downfield to make sure he doesn't burn you deep and only lose 15 penalty yards), I'm struggling to think of any other sports rule where it benefits a team to commit (and be called for) an infraction of the sport's rules.

The idea is that you should never derive a benefit from breaking the rules.

[IslandRed]

Not only is this more fair because it prevents teams from abusing a supposed penalty to gain an advantage, but it would also improve the game aesthetically by basically eliminating the horribly painful sequence at the end of many basketball games where the last 3 minutes take 30 minutes of real time due to all the fouls.

Definitely can see both sides of it. Yes, it would be nice to watch a game without the free-throw slog. Unfortunately, removing the comeback mechanism invokes the question of the cure possibly being worse than the disease. Yes, the last three minutes will be more aesthetically pleasing -- if anyone's left watching since the game will no longer be in doubt.

[BillDoran]

I really like RMR's suggestion, with Caveat's caveat. It's much too radical (and logical) to ever be implemented, but it does make one wonder how end-games would play out. As is, the rules really do artificially tighten games. Would fans miss the suspense of a poor free throw-shooting team letting a game dribble away? Would it require coaches to employ more fan-friendly strategies (full court pressure, trapping, etc.) earlier in games? Would it result in more more organic outcomes?

I'm for anything that ends the late game foul fests that most basketball games currently close with.

[texasdave]

If you think about it, a team with the lead could possibly hold the ball for the last 3 or 4 or 5 minutes of the game and score 6 or 8 points. If I am coaching a team that is behind and I do not have the option of fouling, then I have to press and hope to come up with steals. I can easily see a number of fouls being committed, a number of free throws being made and (if the clock is reset) a long time being run off the clock. I do not see the upside.

Does anyone remember Dean Smith, Carolina, Phil Ford and the four corners?

[RBA]

How about. A player that commits 2 fouls in a quarter. Sits out 60 seconds or until the end of the quarter if less than 60 sec left. And his team has to play short handed. If they flop in a game, ejected for the rest of the quarter, but with replacement allowed.

[RedsManRick]

It would be the whole game, TD. The basic contention is that fouling should never confer an advantage to the fouling team.

I don't understand the situation you described above with the team holding the ball for minutes at a time. There is still a shot clock and it's not that hard to play tough defense, press, etc. and to not foul. Yeah, you're right, if a team is too aggressive going for steals and keeps fouling, they could give the game away; I'd suggest they probably wouldn't do that.

[IslandRed]

There is still a shot clock and it's not that hard to play tough defense, press, etc. and to not foul.

The history of basketball asks, "since when?" (Assuming we're talking a relatively evenly-matched game -- if Team A can shut down Team B without hardly ever fouling, they're way better and they're going to win anyway.) Tough defense or effective pressing requires proximity and aggressiveness, which creates a greater chance of contact, which results in fouls. If you doubt, all you have to do is watch a team at the end of a game that's been told, "whatever you do, don't foul." They have to consciously dial back and play more passively. All-out D involves risk.

Anyway, if we're going to be real sticklers about never gaining an advantage by breaking the rules... there isn't much difference between a foul and walking someone, is there? After all, the base on balls was created as a penalty for not following the rules (i.e. the pitcher is supposed to throw strikes so the hitter has the opportunity to put the ball in play), yet the defensive team sometimes gladly accepts the penalty as a preferable outcome.* But most of the time, walks and fouls are not intentional. They are merely routine parts of their respective games as played by imperfect humans.

* Can you imagine if Joey Votto had the option of declining the penalty, so to speak, and just stayed at the plate until he either put it in play or struck out? Hmmm... wait... I might be talking myself into this.

[RiverRat13]

It is an interesting idea and one that I'd like to take more time to think about. My first reaction is that on the college and high school levels there would be one major unintended consequence of such a penalty for fouling... refs would simply call even less fouls than they do now. Referees hate to "decide" the game in the last few possessions of a game so they would be even slower to call a foul if it has that much impact. And I think they would call less in the beginnings of each half knowing that each foul gets a team that much closer to such a huge advantage being in the bonus.

[mdccclxix]

It would be the whole game, TD. The basic contention is that fouling should never confer an advantage to the fouling team.

I don't understand the situation you described above with the team holding the ball for minutes at a time. There is still a shot clock and it's not that hard to play tough defense, press, etc. and to not foul. Yeah, you're right, if a team is too aggressive going for steals and keeps fouling, they could give the game away; I'd suggest they probably wouldn't do that.

This is not true.

[mdccclxix]

One thing I think may still allow comebacks is if the team behind is in the bonus and has a player that can draw fouls. They get 2 shots and the ball, or an easier, less contested shot at least.

I think if the bonus limit was raised (are we talking about the bonus or double bonus?) to say 9 or 10, then the double bonus kicked in the rule change suggested you might see refs allow an even tougher style of play? or they might go back to calling hand checks and free things up for higher scoring. Could go either way. In both cases, you'd start to get more Paul Janish players on teams that can basically barely dribble but are good defenders.

I don't know, another thing that separates basketball from these other sports is that there are 340 division one teams. In any given year, 150 of them could win a game against a top opponent. That kind of parity is important for the health of the sport.

Simply making your free throws is a hugely important skill in the game, and one incidentally that is fading in the mens game.

[RiverRat13]

One thing I think may still allow comebacks is if the team behind is in the bonus and has a player that can draw fouls. They get 2 shots and the ball, or an easier, less contested shot at least.

I think if the bonus limit was raised (are we talking about the bonus or double bonus?) to say 9 or 10, then the double bonus kicked in the rule change suggested you might see refs allow an even tougher style of play? or they might go back to calling hand checks and free things up for higher scoring. Could go either way. In both cases, you'd start to get more Paul Janish players on teams that can basically barely dribble but are good defenders.

I don't know, another thing that separates basketball from these other sports is that there are 340 division one teams. In any given year, 150 of them could win a game against a top opponent. That kind of parity is important for the health of the sport.

Simply making your free throws is a hugely important skill in the game, and one incidentally that is fading in the mens game.

Not a whole lot of research to back up that claim. In fact, FT% has stayed pretty much flat for the last 50 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp&

[mdccclxix]

Not a whole lot of research to back up that claim. In fact, FT% has stayed pretty much flat for the last 50 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp&

Ha, I stand corrected.

[dabvu2498]

I would be for making fouls more punitive if we also lower shot clock times to 25 seconds.

[jmac]

Along a different line, I got this off twitter :

Andy Katz reporting rules committee voting on lowering shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds in college basketball

[improbus]

I would love to see the shot clock shortened. I would like the NBA's 24, but 30 is a step in the right direction.

Any sport with a clock has the same problem (albeit in different forms.) It always feels somewhat unsatisfying when a football team get a first down with 1:30 left and then takes a knee for three downs. The same goes with foul fests and time wasting in soccer. Hockey is the only clock based sport where this doesn't pose as much of an obstacle, but that is based on the speed of the game and the rapid changes in possession. Maybe all of those flaws are one of the reasons we populate a message board about a sport where you have to play completely to the end.

[improbus]

I think the rule proposed will make the games move faster but they will also eliminate many comeback opportunities.

[texasdave]

There are other instances in sports where a team benefits from breaking the rules. Delay of game in football to get a better angle on a field goal. (I have always wondered why the defensive team could not decline that penalty and, in effect, say kick it from right here.) I have seen teams delay of game to run time off the clock. Take a delay of game to get a better distance for the punter. Icing the puck in hockey to kill off a penalty. These things happen.

[jmac]

I think the rule proposed will make the games move faster but they will also eliminate many comeback opportunities.

Along the lines as what you are saying, this will result in more possessions per game which should benefit the upper tier teams.

[Sea Ray]

There are other instances in sports where a team benefits from breaking the rules. Delay of game in football to get a better angle on a field goal. (I have always wondered why the defensive team could not decline that penalty and, in effect, say kick it from right here.) I have seen teams delay of game to run time off the clock. Take a delay of game to get a better distance for the punter. Icing the puck in hockey to kill off a penalty. These things happen.

I've never seen a delay of game penalty in order to improve the angle on a FG. I have seen it on punts. And you are incorrect. The other team can decline the penalty if they choose.

[Boss-Hog]

A team leading late in the game and backed up towards their own endzone will sometimes purposely take a safety (if they'll still have the lead) in order to get better field position vs. punting their opponents the ball.

[TeamSelig]

The only downside I see to this is how much control it would give to the referees.

[IslandRed]

That, and making the NBA All-Star Game the template for what every NBA game would look like.

[texasdave]

I've never seen a delay of game penalty in order to improve the angle on a FG. I have seen it on punts. And you are incorrect. The other team can decline the penalty if they choose.

You are right. They can decline the penalty. I have seen teams purposely take the penalty to improve the angle on field goals. The point still remains that a team is potentially able to gain an advantage by breaking the rule.

[IslandRed]

I've never seen a delay of game penalty in order to improve the angle on a FG.

Think college/HS with the wider hashmarks... a 19-yard field goal has a pretty severe angle. It softens up going back five yards.

[Sea Ray]

Think college/HS with the wider hashmarks... a 19-yard field goal has a pretty severe angle. It softens up going back five yards.

I understand. I've just never seen it happen.

I don't see where we get people racking their brains to come up with these examples get us anywhere. The act of purposing fouling in order to win a game happens just about every game and often. It's a basic strategy in basketball 101. In the case of the Mich game, it was disadvantageous that they hadn't fouled more as it meant that the other team was not forced to the FT line. This sets basketball apart from the other sports. If you want to draw equivalencies with football, let the other team decline the bonus FT shots

[improbus]

Other college hoops rules that should change:
1) Take away two (or three) timeouts per team. Five is entirely too many. To me, timeouts are the main culprit in the lack of flow in the college game. Most of the time a team goes on a run, the opposing coach calls a timeout to kill it. It is an artificial change in the flow of a game that shouldn't happen.
2) Tournament specific: Sync up the fixed timeouts with the timeouts taken by a team. In the NCAA tourney, there are certain times when a TV timeout becomes automatic (e.g. at the first dead ball after the 12:00 mark). But, if a team were to take a timeout close the the TV break, they play out both of them, often resulting in 10 minutes of commercials and 30 seconds of basketball. It is awful.
3) Eliminate the timeout after a made basket: Once the ball goes through the cylinder, the team that made the basket shouldn't be able to call a timeout. They don't have possession of the ball. This really stifles flow.
4) Fix the Block/Charge issue: A charge should be a rare event. Essentially, the defensive player should have to be set when the offensive player begins his drive for there to be a charge (not simply be set for one second). This would eliminate the slide-in charge call.
5) Eliminate the possession arrow. Enough said.

Really, numbers 1-3 are designed to lessen the direct influence of coaches on the game. I want to watch athletes play, not coaches coach. I am fine with the coaches dictating the strategy of the team, but I don't want them to have an official role in the game (see the influence of hockey and soccer coaches for good examples). Everything that happens on the court (including the calling of timeouts) should have to be handled by the players.

[Chip R]

Other college hoops rules that should change:
1) Take away two (or three) timeouts per team. Five is entirely too many. To me, timeouts are the main culprit in the lack of flow in the college game. Most of the time a team goes on a run, the opposing coach calls a timeout to kill it. It is an artificial change in the flow of a game that shouldn't happen.

I think each team should have a full time out and a 30 second time out each half. If you don't use them, you lose them. But it won't happen because the advertisers like all of the time outs for commercials.


2) Tournament specific: Sync up the fixed timeouts with the timeouts taken by a team. In the NCAA tourney, there are certain times when a TV timeout becomes automatic (e.g. at the first dead ball after the 12:00 mark). But, if a team were to take a timeout close the the TV break, they play out both of them, often resulting in 10 minutes of commercials and 30 seconds of basketball. It is awful.

That's no different than the regular season but I agree that if a time out is called within a minute of a TV time out, there is no TV time out. Of course only 2 time outs per team per half would fix that.


3) Eliminate the timeout after a made basket: Once the ball goes through the cylinder, the team that made the basket shouldn't be able to call a timeout. They don't have possession of the ball. This really stifles flow.

I don't think that's really a problem except during the last few minutes of the game. Again, fewer time outs would help fix that.


4) Fix the Block/Charge issue: A charge should be a rare event. Essentially, the defensive player should have to be set when the offensive player begins his drive for there to be a charge (not simply be set for one second). This would eliminate the slide-in charge call.

I think this should be fixed but I'm not sure how. The semi-circle is a joke. Refs will call blocks 99% of the time when the player has a toenail in the semi-circle. I don't like to see players sliding under guys just to get a charge.


5) Eliminate the possession arrow. Enough said.

I'm OK with that. Refs can't throw jump balls very well anyway so keep it as is.


Really, numbers 1-3 are designed to lessen the direct influence of coaches on the game. I want to watch athletes play, not coaches coach. I am fine with the coaches dictating the strategy of the team, but I don't want them to have an official role in the game (see the influence of hockey and soccer coaches for good examples). Everything that happens on the court (including the calling of timeouts) should have to be handled by the players.

I can see that. I'd like to see a game where there's scoring but I don't want to see a parade to the free throw line. Perhaps lowering the shot clock to 30 seconds and make it 8 seconds to get the ball across half court would help the flow of the game. Perhaps a trapezoid lane like in international basketball would help to keep the middle from being clogged up.

[improbus]

I think each team should have a full time out and a 30 second time out each half. If you don't use them, you lose them. But it won't happen because the advertisers like all of the time outs for commercials.
Only in a conversation about college athletics could a point seem so logical and yet preposterous at the same time. We wouldn't dare improve the game by cutting into the NCAA's and companies bottom lines.