Proposed rule change

[Aike]

This is just from me, and more of a shift in enforcement than a change.

All of this talk about do you foul up 3 or not got me thinking…what if the refs actually called intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul?

I know they aren’t even called intentional fouls anymore, but you know what I’m talking about.

If the offensive team is doing everything in their power to run a play and avoid contact, why should the defense be able to chase them down and grab them to put them on the line?

Why is the quickest whistle at any point in the game during the closing seconds when teams are trying to foul intentionally? Refs will ignore contact for 39 minutes every Saturday, but in minute 40, every dirty look becomes a foul.

Let’s be realistic. Isn’t one of the most exciting plays in basketball when a team is down 3 late and hits a shot to tie? Why have we let the refs take this away from us?

Start calling an intentional foul what it is, and we will go back to teams being forced to play defense late when they’re up 3. I think it would be a welcome improvement.

 

[Eight_Banners]

Yes.

Here are the written rules for a Flagrant 1:

"1. Flagrant 1 personal foul.

A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature (unwarranted or too much) and/or unnecessary (avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play), but is not based solely on the severity of the act.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

a) Causing excessive or unnecessary contact with an opponent;
b) Contact with an opponent that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player;
c) Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score. Depending on the severity of the contact and the potential for injury, this type of foul could rise to the level of a flagrant 2 foul;
d) Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
e) Contact with a player making a throw-in;
f) Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7);
g) Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm and which may lead the official to believe the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul; and
h) Contact with an opponent that is not the result of a normal basketball play. “Normal basketball play” is defined as any activity by a player, including incidental contact, which is generally accepted as that which occurs in a basketball game when the player is attempting to make a legal offensive or defensive play."


There are some end of game fouls where the opponent is making a play on the ball. In the event that the defense is just grabbing a part of the offensive player's uniform, body, etc., chasing them down from behind and swiping at the body away from the ball, that should be a Flagrant 1.

I've said this for years, and it would make these end of game situations a lot better, especially from a purely basketball perspective.

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

How about just give the team the option it being a dead ball inbounds play instead of free throws?

 

[KY Long Rifle]

I’m ok with the end-of-game fouls, as long as the defensive player is making a play on the ball. The fouls where the defense is just grabbing the guy around waist to stop the clock should be flagrant fouls.

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

I’m with you @Aike - have been on this train for years.

 

[HagginHall1999]

This is just from me, and more of a shift in enforcement than a change.

All of this talk about do you foul up 3 or not got me thinking…what if the refs actually called intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul?

I know they aren’t even called intentional fouls anymore, but you know what I’m talking about.

If the offensive team is doing everything in their power to run a play and avoid contact, why should the defense be able to chase them down and grab them to put them on the line?

Why is the quickest whistle at any point in the game during the closing seconds when teams are trying to foul intentionally? Refs will ignore contact for 39 minutes every Saturday, but in minute 40, every dirty look becomes a foul.

Let’s be realistic. Isn’t one of the most exciting plays in basketball when a team is down 3 late and hits a shot to tie? Why have we let the refs take this away from us?

Start calling an intentional foul what it is, and we will go back to teams being forced to play defense late when they’re up 3. I think it would be a welcome improvement.

Would be wayyyy better.

 

[ralphdaltonfan]

This is just from me, and more of a shift in enforcement than a change.

All of this talk about do you foul up 3 or not got me thinking…what if the refs actually called intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul?

I know they aren’t even called intentional fouls anymore, but you know what I’m talking about.

If the offensive team is doing everything in their power to run a play and avoid contact, why should the defense be able to chase them down and grab them to put them on the line?

Why is the quickest whistle at any point in the game during the closing seconds when teams are trying to foul intentionally? Refs will ignore contact for 39 minutes every Saturday, but in minute 40, every dirty look becomes a foul.

Let’s be realistic. Isn’t one of the most exciting plays in basketball when a team is down 3 late and hits a shot to tie? Why have we let the refs take this away from us?

Start calling an intentional foul what it is, and we will go back to teams being forced to play defense late when they’re up 3. I think it would be a welcome improvement.

You are speaking my language Aike!

It's the only sport on the planet where rules violations are part of the strategy going into a game.

Everyone knows why you are fouling when up 3--so why isn't that punished? Just wait until a team the media doesn't swoon over beats a team that is a darling-say like a Houston/Duke matchup and Cougars foul up 3 and win. Rule will be looked at with "Commish" Bilas pontificating about it for a year.

I completely agree with those who take up for the players dictating the outcome of the game, but funny how it's WHO benefits that impacts the push for actual change.

 

[Jeff2Reed]

Anything that makes sense will not be done in America 2024.

 

[Aike]

How about just give the team the option it being a dead ball inbounds play instead of free throws?

Only problem with this is that a team up 3 could keep fouling over and over and never let the offense get off a shot.

But the option for dead ball out of bounds for a team that’s leading is worth exploring, imo.

 

[Aike]

I’m ok with the end-of-game fouls, as long as the defensive player is making a play on the ball. The fouls where the defense is just grabbing the guy around waist to stop the clock should be flagrant fouls.

My thing is, so often the defense is not really making a play on the ball. They are just making it look like it, and the refs are obliging by blowing the whistle in like 0.3 seconds.

The flip side is that defensive teams who are down 2, 3, 4 points and are legitimately trapping to try to generate a turnover will often get hit with the quick whistle as well.

 

[KY Long Rifle]

My thing is, so often the defense is not really making a play on the ball. They are just making it look like it, and the refs are obliging by blowing the whistle in like 0.3 seconds.

The flip side is that defensive teams who are down 2, 3, 4 points and are legitimately trapping to try to generate a turnover will often get hit with the quick whistle as well.

If they aren’t making a play on the ball, then it should be a flagrant. I know that doesn’t get called in those situations, but it should. My concern with just eliminating it is exactly what you said about teams legitimately trying to generate a turnover. Obviously, if you’re down late in the game, you should be more aggressive than normal trying to get the ball back. This is going to lead to an increase in fouls, but they are legitimate.

 

[KY Long Rifle]

Also, if a team is up 3 with 5 seconds, and the other team has the ball, I have no problem with them fouling as long as they are attempting to take the ball. If they’re just grabbing the other player to put them on the line, then that should also be a flagrant.

 

[Aike]

Also, if a team is up 3 with 5 seconds, and the other team has the ball, I have no problem with them fouling as long as they are attempting to take the ball. If they’re just grabbing the other player to put them on the line, then that should also be a flagrant.

Thing is, they are almost 100% certainly not making a legitimate play on the ball in that scenario. They are intentionally fouling, and the ref is accommodating them with a quick whistle.

It’s bad basketball, imo.

I guess my biggest problem is the way the refs become partners in crime those last 5 seconds. I just want to see teams allowed to run a play to get off a shot, even if it’s a 35 footer. It’s a lot more fun for everyone.

 

[KY Long Rifle]

I mean… in baseball there are intentional walks. In football coaches will intentionally let the play clock expire and take a penalty. I don’t see the difference, as long as you aren’t wading into the flagrant foul territory.

 

[HenryMuto]

So you're down 1 with 5 seconds left after missing a shot and they grab the rebound and you foul them on purpose or the game ends and you are saying that be intentional foul called ?

Right..................

 

[KY Long Rifle]

Thing is, they are almost 100% certainly not making a legitimate play on the ball in that scenario. They are intentionally fouling, and the ref is accommodating them with a quick whistle.

It’s bad basketball, imo.

I guess my biggest problem is the way the refs become partners in crime those last 5 seconds. I just want to see teams allowed to run a play to get off a shot, even if it’s a 35 footer. It’s a lot more fun for everyone.

I know what you’re saying about the refs having a quick whistle. But, the flip side is you let a team, in a situation where you know they are intent on getting the ball back, play too aggressively and someone gets hurt. It’s just more of a deal where the refs know what’s going down, so they’re waiting on it.

 

[TucsonCat]

If you whistle for flagrant, then teams are going to make them FLAGRANT.

Also, if you want excitement, getting rid of foul strategy won't help. 4 point leads become insurmountable. Heck 1 point leads after 30 seconds are over. Yeah, the 3 point lead scenario is harder, but that's sacrificing 10 percent for 90 percent.

This really seems like rules to correct semantics more than make the game better.

 

[TheDude73]

This is just from me, and more of a shift in enforcement than a change.

All of this talk about do you foul up 3 or not got me thinking…what if the refs actually called intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul?

I know they aren’t even called intentional fouls anymore, but you know what I’m talking about.

If the offensive team is doing everything in their power to run a play and avoid contact, why should the defense be able to chase them down and grab them to put them on the line?

Why is the quickest whistle at any point in the game during the closing seconds when teams are trying to foul intentionally? Refs will ignore contact for 39 minutes every Saturday, but in minute 40, every dirty look becomes a foul.

Let’s be realistic. Isn’t one of the most exciting plays in basketball when a team is down 3 late and hits a shot to tie? Why have we let the refs take this away from us?

Start calling an intentional foul what it is, and we will go back to teams being forced to play defense late when they’re up 3. I think it would be a welcome improvement.

The current state allows the game to drag out a little so ESPN and CBS can cram in more ads.

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

Only problem with this is that a team up 3 could keep fouling over and over and never let the offense get off a shot.

But the option for dead ball out of bounds for a team that’s leading is worth exploring, imo.

Never thought of it for using defense

 

[kennyskywalker34]

My memory isn't what it once was. So I might be rembering this wrong. But seems to me several years ago late in game they used to call a few international fouls.

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

My memory isn't what it once was. So I might be rembering this wrong. But seems to me several years ago late in game they used to call a few international fouls.

Probably only in the Olympic or Pan Am games

 

[kennyskywalker34]

Probably only in the Olympic or Pan Am games

If so I didn't see it. I've never watched a second of either

 

[Emarc]

nah.

 

[Lempface]

How about just give the team the option it being a dead ball inbounds play instead of free throws?

This should be a universal option like declining a penalty in football--at any point of the game.

Edit: games devolving into a FT contest at the end is such bullshit

 

[catsfanbgky]

Well if a team is up 1 or how ever much, and there is less time on the game clock than the shot clock (30 seconds), just end the game. All fouls would be considered intentional, the team would get 2 shots and the ball only to see the exact same thing over and over.. Great idea Jeez do some of you even think before posting ?
How about we just leave the game the way it is, if teams want to foul (as long as they do not mug the opposing team), let them, it is the only chance they have by hoping the team misses free throws.

I hate in football when teams intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock. It is intentional grounding, call the 15 yard penalty and loss of down. (The need to enforce the rules) Yes, that idea is as dumb as the fouling at the end of games that was suggested.

 

[Fox2monk]

This is just from me, and more of a shift in enforcement than a change.

All of this talk about do you foul up 3 or not got me thinking…what if the refs actually called intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul?

I know they aren’t even called intentional fouls anymore, but you know what I’m talking about.

If the offensive team is doing everything in their power to run a play and avoid contact, why should the defense be able to chase them down and grab them to put them on the line?

Why is the quickest whistle at any point in the game during the closing seconds when teams are trying to foul intentionally? Refs will ignore contact for 39 minutes every Saturday, but in minute 40, every dirty look becomes a foul.

Let’s be realistic. Isn’t one of the most exciting plays in basketball when a team is down 3 late and hits a shot to tie? Why have we let the refs take this away from us?

Start calling an intentional foul what it is, and we will go back to teams being forced to play defense late when they’re up 3. I think it would be a welcome improvement.

I agree and it makes perfect sense. It is intentional.

 

[kywildcats8]

How about just give the team the option it being a dead ball inbounds play instead of free throws?

or after so many fouls give them both- after maybe 12 fouls, give the team 1-2 free throws, or 3 to make 2 and the ball- the last minutes takes forever in college basketball because of all the fouls

 

[Eight_Banners]

Well if a team is up 1 or how ever much, and there is less time on the game clock than the shot clock (30 seconds), just end the game. All fouls would be considered intentional, the team would get 2 shots and the ball only to see the exact same thing over and over.. Great idea Jeez do some of you even think before posting ?
How about we just leave the game the way it is, if teams want to foul (as long as they do not mug the opposing team), let them, it is the only chance they have by hoping the team misses free throws.

I hate in football when teams intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock. It is intentional grounding, call the 15 yard penalty and loss of down. (The need to enforce the rules) Yes, that idea is as dumb as the fouling at the end of games that was suggested.

Did you read and think about the original post?

If a team is down 1, with under 30 seconds remaining in the game, they can still play hard defense. The OP is arguing that if they are committing fouls, like grabbing from behind, not making a play on the ball but on the offensive player, then they should be called an intentional foul, based on the rules that describe an intentional foul.

If a defender is defending and making plays on the ball, that would not be an intentional foul. In reality, if more teams actually went after the ball with hard defense, instead of "intentionally" fouling, there would probably be higher rates of turnovers created by the defense. Many referees would probably be less whistle prone in those final seconds if hard defense was being played, and defenses might be surprised at the struggle they create for offenses. Just look at the last minute of the UK/UT game. If UT would have just fouled immediately, we would have sealed that game. Their intense defense almost earned them overtime.

(NOTE: defenders are literally committing an intentional foul when they immediately grab the offensive player without making a play on the ball)

 

[catsfanbgky]

OK, like I said, same as spiking the ball in football, silly to change a rule that keeps a team in it. You MAY get a steal, but more than likely, you just let extra time run off the clock, limiting your possessions to make a comeback, and still end up fouling. Something you should have done 10 seconds earlier, except you wasted a possession or two losing the 10 seconds. Neither has a high success rate, but trying for the initial steal, then fouling immediately if you do not get it, is the best route to take.

 

[EliteBlue]

Only problem with this is that a team up 3 could keep fouling over and over and never let the offense get off a shot.

But the option for dead ball out of bounds for a team that’s leading is worth exploring, imo.

If it’s an option, then the trailing team would select the freethrow option.

I’m torn on it tho, part of me likes that you can strategically attempt To get back in a game the final 2 minutes and it forces a team to execute under pressure at what should be a fundamentally easy part of the game…..the other part of me likes the concept of the “option” as it would keep games on schedule and we wouldn’t have to wait for a game to go over 15 minutes scheduled time bc the final 1:30 of a 10 point game took 10+ minutes of freethrows

 

[Boyd94]

How about a 10 second run off instead of free throws for an intentional end game foul?

 

[rabbitTown]

Yes.

Here are the written rules for a Flagrant 1:

"1. Flagrant 1 personal foul.

A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature (unwarranted or too much) and/or unnecessary (avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play), but is not based solely on the severity of the act.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

a) Causing excessive or unnecessary contact with an opponent;
b) Contact with an opponent that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player;
c) Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score. Depending on the severity of the contact and the potential for injury, this type of foul could rise to the level of a flagrant 2 foul;
d) Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
e) Contact with a player making a throw-in;
f) Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7);
g) Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm and which may lead the official to believe the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul; and
h) Contact with an opponent that is not the result of a normal basketball play. “Normal basketball play” is defined as any activity by a player, including incidental contact, which is generally accepted as that which occurs in a basketball game when the player is attempting to make a legal offensive or defensive play."


There are some end of game fouls where the opponent is making a play on the ball. In the event that the defense is just grabbing a part of the offensive player's uniform, body, etc., chasing them down from behind and swiping at the body away from the ball, that should be a Flagrant 1.

I've said this for years, and it would make these end of game situations a lot better, especially from a purely basketball perspective.

This is especially egregious when the foul comes before the ball is even inbounded (as the players move to get open)... and the fouling team essentially commits a flagrant 1 foul with no penalty of time coming off the clock.

 

[rabbitTown]

Well if a team is up 1 or how ever much, and there is less time on the game clock than the shot clock (30 seconds), just end the game. All fouls would be considered intentional, the team would get 2 shots and the ball only to see the exact same thing over and over.. Great idea Jeez do some of you even think before posting ?
How about we just leave the game the way it is, if teams want to foul (as long as they do not mug the opposing team), let them, it is the only chance they have by hoping the team misses free throws.

I hate in football when teams intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock. It is intentional grounding, call the 15 yard penalty and loss of down. (The need to enforce the rules) Yes, that idea is as dumb as the fouling at the end of games that was suggested.

All fouls won't work.
You have to allow the defense to make legitimate attempts to gain possession. If they happen to foul then it should be treated like it is the prior 39 1/2 minutes (out of bounds or FTs if in the bonus).
To me, this is where coaches earn their money. And good coaches, prevail.

 

[uky8unc5]

Old Referees adage: Never make a call that nobody wants called.
(Like 3 seconds)
(Or end-of-games Fouls but kid made effort at ball)

 

[FurdTerguson]

How about the final two minutes of the game you get three to make two? Might encourage defense to play honestly (go for a legit steal) before fouling because the team with the lead has a better chance to convert free throws

 

[Lempface]

How about the final two minutes of the game you get three to make two? Might encourage defense to play honestly (go for a legit steal) before fouling because the team with the lead has a better chance to convert free throws

Allow the foul to be declined, if you decline it the shot clock does not reset. If you accept the foul it's either shots or if not in the bonus then the shot clock resets to 20 like normal. The defense should never get an advantage over the offense based on intentionally fouling, e.g. hack-a-Shaq.

 

[gharding07]

How about a 10 second run off instead of free throws for an intentional end game foul?

This! NFL has 10 second run off's, I like it.

 

[JDHoss]

I watched ETSU v Samford last night, and it was a perfect example of why I watch so little college basketball unless I have an emotional interest in at least one (last night it was ETSU) of the teams. There were 54 total fouls and sixty-damn-six foul shots. The game took 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete. When you have a game that has 40 minutes of live action, and it takes 160 minutes to get to the end, there's a problem. College basketball is in dire need of an officiating and rules overhaul. I'd go with some combination of the following...

* 10 minute quarters where you don't start shooting FT (except for in the act of shooting) until the opponent has committed 5 team fouls. The fouls reset after each quarter.

* Widen the lane to the international rule and call the 3 seconds rule. I watched the big galoot from Purdue camp out for nearly 7 seconds against Rutgers a few weeks ago before finally drawing a foul.

* Use the international rule for offensive goaltending.

* Do away with the block/charge if you can't call it correctly and consistently. Make it an offensive foul if the player uses the chikin wing, but otherwise play on.

* Make clear flops a Flagrant 2 with an ejection and 1 game suspension. There has to be a monitor review and it has to be clear call. If it's highly questionable and the official still calls it, they get a one game suspension.

* Pay officials to be full time. They can spend the off season attending clinics.

* Go to the Elam Ending. I can't believe they've not experimented with it in the NIT or the other postseason tournament (CIT?) yet. This will clean up the end of games by forcing teams to run their offense and play defense instead of trying to milk the clock or hacking and fouling to extend the game.

 

[otis-gip]

I watched ETSU v Samford last night, and it was a perfect example of why I watch so little college basketball unless I have an emotional interest in at least one (last night it was ETSU) of the teams. There were 54 total fouls and sixty-damn-six foul shots. The game took 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete. When you have a game that has 40 minutes of live action, and it takes 160 minutes to get to the end, there's a problem. College basketball is in dire need of an officiating and rules overhaul. I'd go with some combination of the following...

* 10 minute quarters where you don't start shooting FT (except for in the act of shooting) until the opponent has committed 5 team fouls. The fouls reset after each quarter.

* Widen the lane to the international rule and call the 3 seconds rule. I watched the big galoot from Purdue camp out for nearly 7 seconds against Rutgers a few weeks ago before finally drawing a foul.

* Use the international rule for offensive goaltending.

* Do away with the block/charge if you can't call it correctly and consistently. Make it an offensive foul if the player uses the chikin wing, but otherwise play on.

* Make clear flops a Flagrant 2 with an ejection and 1 game suspension. There has to be a monitor review and it has to be clear call. If it's highly questionable and the official still calls it, they get a one game suspension.

* Pay officials to be full time. They can spend the off season attending clinics.

* Go to the Elam Ending. I can't believe they've not experimented with it in the NIT or the other postseason tournament (CIT?) yet. This will clean up the end of games by forcing teams to run their offense and play defense instead of trying to milk the clock or hacking and fouling to extend the game.

Elam ending would really help. Cutting down on on all the long tv timeouts and numerous coaches timeouts would help the game

 

[BBBLazing]

Elam ending would really help. Cutting down on on all the long tv timeouts and numerous coaches timeouts would help the game

The problem with this is it favors a team that is hotter at the end of the game than the earlier part of the game. Let's say Kentucky has been leading a game the whole way, but someone important fouls out with about 4 minutes to go with UK up 78-75. Now they say first team to 86 wins. If we are able to run our offense and get a few stops, we shoot free throws and win by 8. But if it is just who can score more faster, it puts us at a disadvantage because we are a player down and they are hotter. I think you should honor the entire game.