Foul Trouble

[SWC75]

I've always hated the foul-out rule. There are so many inconsistent and questionable calls and different interpretations. Players don't foul out of a football or baseball game. They can be ejected if they do something flagrant or unsportmenlike. But a fifth holding call isn't going to get you tossed from a game, (except by your coach).

Years ago I watched and NAIA playoff game where a 6-11 center for the favored team fouled out with a couple minutes to go and looked at the ref, wondering what he had called. The replay showed no contact at all. The guy was senior and, being a NAIA guy, his future pro career was uncertain. But he'd been a great player for his college team and his career was over. he walked to the bench in slow motion, sat down as if he was arthritic. Somebody put a towl over his head so people couldn't see that he was crying. His team went on to lose the game. It seemed ridiculous and even tragic to me.

Last night we saw Sullinger go out for 13 minutes of the first half because he had two fouls. Waiters was out for much of the ssecond half for the same reason and couldn't foul a lousy free throw shooter in the final minute because it would have been his fifth. We had several others guys with four fouls for much of the game and who can tell how many plays that impacted.

There's got to be a better way. You could just extend the number of fouls causing a foul out, as the Big East did experimenting with the 6 foul rule years ago. Nobody seemed to like it. Do we have to have players foul out at all? We probably need something more than just foul shots or a loss of possession or we'd get hockey style "enforcers" or late game fouling machines. Maybe the number of fouls the fouling player has could determine the number of foul shots the guy he fouls gets, (one for one foul, two for two, etc.) Maybe if a player has 5 fouls the other team gets 2 foul shots and possession. Or maybe we need a "penalty box" concept: a player with 5 fouls has to leave the game for a set amount of time. Or you leave for a minute with the first foul, two minutes for the second, etc. Of course that could mimic fouling out if there's not many minutes left in the game.

I'm not sure what the answer is. But I am sure there must be a better way to do this.

 

[pfister1]

Having the disqualification rule is important in that it prevents, to a certain extent, defense by foul. Could you imagine playing against Pitt's clutch and grab style if not only all their fouls weren't fouls called, but they also didn't get you anything more than free throws, which some teams don't hit at a very good rate. How about when we had Rick or Arinze (sub 50% free throw shooters) in the middle....would they ever be allowed to cleanly catch the ball and get a shot off if there was no negative repercussion for amassing a lot of fouls.

Maybe if you awarded points - not free throws for a guy who has committed five fouls and stays in to commit more. In that way a coach has to make a determination is that player worth having on the court if his fouls will be automatically cashed into points??

 

[CusefanATL]

Could u imagine some of those g-town teams without the threat of disqualification?

 

[cap2nine]

Foul limits, DQs, Bonus and Double Bonus are all integral parts of the game. And, they are fundamental to the strategy of overall game plans as well as specific plays and scenarios. I think that changing the penalties for fouls or removing the DQ altogether would be a far greater impact than say the implementation of the 3pt. line or shot-clock. Players have become better and better (in general) at shooting free-throws over the years as a deterrent to fouls and teams have become deeper with more versatile players to protect against foul trouble. I think the real focus should be on the quality of the officiating. As players have become bigger, faster and stronger, the rules and method of officiating have not kept pace. I would be for a method of limited replay officiating as long as it didn't disrupt the flow of the game. Or perhaps, more to the point of foul trouble and DQs, perhaps any called foul that results in the DQ of a player could be replay reviewed for accuracy. I think the general format of foul limits and penalties has to stay intact though.

 

[AccuRater]

I recall a game the Syracuse Nats played a million years ago. Some of the details are fuzzy but the game went to five overtimes and Syracuse won 125-123. Several players fouled out. Finally, all but four players on one of the teams (perhaps both) had fouled out. The referees allowed a disqualified player to continue but at the "cost" of a technical. Every subsequent foul on a previously disqualified player included a technical.

Perhaps something similar could be adopted. Player can remain in the game after five fouls. However on each subsequent foul the opposing team gets to inbound the ball after the free throws are attempted.

 

[RoysRunts]

How about Disqualifying Officials, and making them face a press conference after every game.

 

[sufandu]

How about Disqualifying Officials, and making them face a press conference after every game.

This. There are no visible consequences for officials doing a bad job. We hear that they're graded and the best officials get to work the most important games, but we have no way of knowing whether this actually happens consistently.