(03-11-2015 02:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: I think some of you guys are missing the central point of this discussion by dwelling on terminology. It does not matter what it is called.....intentional, unintentuional, flagrant etc.
My point is..... late in a close game you see players put their hands on or in some way foul a player to "purposely" (how is that for terminology) draw a foul to make the oppoent shoot a free throw and hope he misses and you can get the rebound.
What I would like to see is "any foul" in the last two minutes gives the opponent the free throws and the ball out of bounds.
So basically it becomes a technical foul? That makes no sense. Where would you draw the line? A lot of times you see truly unintentional fouls at the end of the game. Imagine that backfiring on you big time.
You get one free throw and the ball out of bounds. The line is .... don't foul or it will cost you...not help you. All plays in the last two minutes are magnified under any rules.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 03:16 PM by SMUmustangs.)
(03-10-2015 04:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: Personally I do not think a team should ever gain something by committing a foul.
On the money. I think basketball is the only sport where you intentionally commit a VIOLATION ... to gain an advantage?
It is like in football where you are going to take a knee ... but, no. The defense intentionally jumps offsides and presto chango, you are now required to kick a Field Goal and the defense gets the ball back. And even if you make the FG, the defense can outscore you with a TD (2 shots when the fouling team can then make a three).
Personally, I think mandated FTs is silly as it is not the natural flow of the game. Just like a shoot-out is not in the natural flow in hockey or soccer.
And another comparison is a team down by one late in the game in hockey and intentionally crashes a guy. Instead of still being able to run out clock ... nope, they FORCE you into a shoot-out. You do start with a 6 to 5 advantage in shots, but no longer does the actual entree (live real hockey) determine the game but instead a side order (shoot-out).
Only time FT's are basically mandatory is when a foul takes place in the act of shooting or any on the floor foul occurs that is the 7th (or more) team foul (2 FT's with 10 or more fouls). (Scenarios do not involved automatical flagrant fouls).
In regards to FT history...the FT has been around for 120 years...so its ALWAYS been in the natural flow of the game.
The game of basketball was not invented to be non-stop.
(03-11-2015 03:08 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: You get one free throw and the ball out of bounds. The line is .... don't foul or it will cost you...not help you. All plays in the last two minutes are magnified under any rules.
Why play the game then?
If you ever played the game, you would understand that aggressive is taught and played throughout most of the game. Nolan Richardson, Arkansas coach, coined the term "40 minutes of hell" and successfully won a championship with that style.
How are you not supposed to foul played good, hard defense? It's going to happen regardless of intentions.
Many fans, myself included, have been turned off by rules to stifle defenses in other sports. For example, you can't hit a QB high and you can't hit him low. Where are you supposed to hit him?
(03-10-2015 04:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: Personally I do not think a team should ever gain something by committing a foul.
On the money. I think basketball is the only sport where you intentionally commit a VIOLATION ... to gain an advantage?
It is like in football where you are going to take a knee ... but, no. The defense intentionally jumps offsides and presto chango, you are now required to kick a Field Goal and the defense gets the ball back. And even if you make the FG, the defense can outscore you with a TD (2 shots when the fouling team can then make a three).
Personally, I think mandated FTs is silly as it is not the natural flow of the game. Just like a shoot-out is not in the natural flow in hockey or soccer.
And another comparison is a team down by one late in the game in hockey and intentionally crashes a guy. Instead of still being able to run out clock ... nope, they FORCE you into a shoot-out. You do start with a 6 to 5 advantage in shots, but no longer does the actual entree (live real hockey) determine the game but instead a side order (shoot-out).
Only time FT's are basically mandatory is when a foul takes place in the act of shooting or any on the floor foul occurs that is the 7th (or more) team foul (2 FT's with 10 or more fouls). (Scenarios do not involved automatical flagrant fouls).
In regards to FT history...the FT has been around for 120 years...so its ALWAYS been in the natural flow of the game.
The game of basketball was not invented to be non-stop.
(03-11-2015 03:51 PM)sfink16 Wrote:
(03-11-2015 03:08 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: You get one free throw and the ball out of bounds. The line is .... don't foul or it will cost you...not help you. All plays in the last two minutes are magnified under any rules.
Why play the game then?
If you ever played the game, you would understand that aggressive is taught and played throughout most of the game. Nolan Richardson, Arkansas coach, coined the term "40 minutes of hell" and successfully won a championship with that style.
How are you not supposed to foul played good, hard defense? It's going to happen regardless of intentions.
Many fans, myself included, have been turned off by rules to stifle defenses in other sports. For example, you can't hit a QB high and you can't hit him low. Where are you supposed to hit him?
I played the game....did you? I guess you do not care about the well being of the football players. That is easy to say as a fan...you are not taking the hits.
As for basketball...play hard, but if you make a mistake and foul you get penalized, I think that is why they call it a foul. Richardson won one NC...how many did John Wooden win with his style of play? Didn't Nolan Richardson's players have fouls called on them and when they did, didn't they get penalized?
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 07:33 PM by SMUmustangs.)
(03-11-2015 05:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: I played the game....did you? I guess you do not care about the well being of the football players. That is easy to say as a fan...you are not taking the hits.
As for basketball...play hard, but if you make a mistake and foul you get penalized, I think that is why they call it a foul. Richardson won one NC...how many did John Wooden win? Didn't Nolan Richardson's players have fouls called on them and when they did, didn't they get penalized?
Don't play football if you don't want to get hit or heavens forbid get hurt. I've been hit, and at times been hurt, many times playing sports. That was my choice to play. What I did, or what you did, has nothing to do with the discussion.
Don't play basketball if you don't want to get fouled. You're asking to change the rules. Why?
The rules say that if you commit a shooting foul, or are over the limit of committing fouls for the half, that you get to shoot free throws. It doesn't say when you commit the fouls. I'm just trying to understand you logic. It doesn't make sense to change the rules.
(03-11-2015 05:05 PM)CalallenStang Wrote: Just allow the team that is fouled a choice between free throws or the ball out of bounds. Problem solved.
(03-11-2015 06:35 PM)sfink16 Wrote:
(03-11-2015 05:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: I played the game....did you? I guess you do not care about the well being of the football players. That is easy to say as a fan...you are not taking the hits.
As for basketball...play hard, but if you make a mistake and foul you get penalized, I think that is why they call it a foul. Richardson won one NC...how many did John Wooden win? Didn't Nolan Richardson's players have fouls called on them and when they did, didn't they get penalized?
Don't play football if you don't want to get hit or heavens forbid get hurt. I've been hit, and at times been hurt, many times playing sports. That was my choice to play. What I did, or what you did, has nothing to do with the discussion.
Don't play basketball if you don't want to get fouled. You're asking to change the rules. Why?
The rules say that if you commit a shooting foul, or are over the limit of committing fouls for the half, that you get to shoot free throws. It doesn't say when you commit the fouls. I'm just trying to understand you logic. It doesn't make sense to change the rules.
You brought up the question if I had ever played the game. I just responded. But I agree it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Every player expects.... even hopes to get fouled. So that comment makes no sense to me.
It appears you may have jumped in the middle of the thread and responded without reading the entire thread. I think if you read all of my posts including the OP you should know why I want to change ONE rule. Basically to eliminate all of the purposeful fouling in the last minute or two of the game.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 07:55 PM by SMUmustangs.)
(03-11-2015 07:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: You brought up the question if I had ever played the game. I just responded. But I agree it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Every player expects.... even hopes to get fouled. So that comment makes no sense to me.
It appears you may have jumped in the middle of the thread and responded without reading the entire thread. I think if you read all of my posts including the OP you should know why I want to change ONE rule. Basically to eliminate all of the purposeful fouling in the last minute or two of the game.
Yes, you offered your opinion and asked if others agreed. Some agreed in some sense while others disagreed. That should have answered your question and satisfied your questions.
Yet you continue to argue with those that disagree, even after soliciting their opinion in the OP.
It might "make no sense" to you but it answered your question(s) as to feelings of those in the thread. Frankly your suggestion makes no sense to me but again that's my opinion and the current rules as they are written.
(03-11-2015 07:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: You brought up the question if I had ever played the game. I just responded. But I agree it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Every player expects.... even hopes to get fouled. So that comment makes no sense to me.
It appears you may have jumped in the middle of the thread and responded without reading the entire thread. I think if you read all of my posts including the OP you should know why I want to change ONE rule. Basically to eliminate all of the purposeful fouling in the last minute or two of the game.
Yes, you offered your opinion and asked if others agreed. Some agreed in some sense while others disagreed. That should have answered your question and satisfied your questions.
Yet you continue to argue with those that disagree, even after soliciting their opinion in the OP.
It might "make no sense" to you but it answered your question(s) as to feelings of those in the thread. Frankly your suggestion makes no sense to me but again that's my opinion and the current rules as they are written.
I am not arguing with anyone. My first post stated the issue. Then my second and third post were to clarify my position.. The rest of my posts were responding to yours.
I think other readers understand the situation...so I am done. I appreciate all of those who participated in the discussion.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2015 11:01 AM by SMUmustangs.)
(03-10-2015 04:16 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: Personally I do not think a team should ever gain something by committing a foul.
On the money. I think basketball is the only sport where you intentionally commit a VIOLATION ... to gain an advantage?
It is like in football where you are going to take a knee ... but, no. The defense intentionally jumps offsides and presto chango, you are now required to kick a Field Goal and the defense gets the ball back. And even if you make the FG, the defense can outscore you with a TD (2 shots when the fouling team can then make a three).
Personally, I think mandated FTs is silly as it is not the natural flow of the game. Just like a shoot-out is not in the natural flow in hockey or soccer.
And another comparison is a team down by one late in the game in hockey and intentionally crashes a guy. Instead of still being able to run out clock ... nope, they FORCE you into a shoot-out. You do start with a 6 to 5 advantage in shots, but no longer does the actual entree (live real hockey) determine the game but instead a side order (shoot-out).
But if the other team makes their free throws, is it really an advantage? And as I pointed out, if you are going for the ball or a steal, even if recklessly, and happen to make contact, how harsh would you consider the violation? And if it is too harsh, the refs will call a flagrant, as perhaps was most famously seen at the end the Pacers-Knicks ECF Game 7 in 1994 on Reggie Miller.
Skip ahead to the 145th minute. There's a cameo by current SMU coach Larry Brown as well.
(03-11-2015 05:05 PM)CalallenStang Wrote: Just allow the team that is fouled a choice between free throws or the ball out of bounds. Problem solved.
Exactly, +3. If anyone doesn't like the status quo, that's the perfect solution.
