Is it just me, or is it a travesty that referees can single-handedly dictate the narrative of a game by getting players in foul trouble? How many times did we see Yao get taken out early because of phantom fouls? Parsons getting in foul trouble hurt us in Game 1. It's even worse in college basketball because the foul limit is just five. Why don't we just get rid of fouling out? It would be good for the product and the game. If you're worried about defensive strategies that would abuse this absence of a DQ penalty (such as an infinite hack a Howard strategy), I have a simple suggestion. To ensure players don't think they can suddenly be more aggressive on defense and foul all the time, replace "fouling out" with this rule: For any player with 5 or more personal fouls -- the player's next foul shall result in the opposing team shooting one free throw (opposing team chooses who shoots the free throw like it's a technical foul) plus the possession. A free point is pretty damaging in a close game, and players with 5+ fouls still have to be careful in playing defense because their next foul could cost their team the game. So it's not like they get to play reckless defense just because they can't foul out. Thoughts?
So instead of taking out the player, you want to give the opposing team a free shot? That's easy especially if the other team is scoring at will, and you only have to give up one point instead of 2 or 3.
I think you misunderstood him, he is saying that they get one foul shot, plus the ball back...just like you do for an illegal defense. I think it would be a great idea personally.
We were going to lose regardless, I don't know why the refs felt the need to kick us while we're down. Chandler help Durant to 1/4 FG so he gets some phantoms calls on him because they want him to shine on national TV I'm guessing. They wanted to add to the humiliation.
So if a player with 5+ foul commits a foul and the team is in the penalty, would that be 1 (technical) free throw + 2 free throws for being in the bonus? In the end, it's a nice idea, but I think the net result will be the same. Teams will still take players out for early foul trouble because reaching 5 personal fouls still incites some sort of penalty against the team. Yao, Parsons, or whoever would still be coming out early.
Why not just make it 7 fouls to foul out? It gives the officials a little less control of the outcome of the game.
They need to eliminate it for THE PLAYOFFS ESPECIALLY. (Or simply allow more fouls in postseason. Pure double standard) Not so much for game strategy reasons, or ref influence reasons. Strictly for THE ENTERTAINMENT DOLLAR. PURE money and viewership I'm not wanting to pay BIG TIME money on tickets to see Kevin Durant and James Harden sitting on the BENCH for 3/4's of the game. And to see Thabo Sefalosha and Francisco Garcia go head to head. Thats a waste. David Stern would stretch out the product even that much more allowing Lebron and Laker stars to stay on the floor the entire game. It'd be obvious self interest. And I'd be for it
Really like this idea. No other sport kicks out a player for having too many fouls. Foul trouble unneccesarily changes the flow of the game.
The refs could just let them play more and be physical like basketball is supposed to be. We need to go back to the 90s.
1. Your solution is just a 'fouling out lite.' Coaches will still limit playing time if you have too many fouls, just not quite as much. I think the solution to Hack-a-Shaq strategies are team penalties, not player penalties. Then you can discourage intentional fouls without affecting the line-up. 2. The DQ has two effects -- limits player minutes when important players get into foul trouble, and limits foul calls on important players when they are in foul trouble. How many times have we seen Kobe Bryant playing with 5 fouls and his fouls either not get called or they get attributed to some other player because the ref is afraid to throw him out? If the players doesn't get tossed, the refs can be more free to call the fouls and you'll end up with more total foul calls. That might be good for reducing the cheating, but can also slow down the game.
Yes. Never been a fan of refs being able to control the game via players fouling out. And from an "entertainment perspective" as a fan watching the game, I don't like the fact that in a star driven league star players could be hampered by this. Imagine if they used the "fouling out" system in the NFL? 2 holding penalties on that left tackle, you are out.
