I like JVG's idea (on Bill Simmons' podcast) of instituting a "penalty box" in the NBA. Rather than suspending a player for an entire game (in the case where a full game suspension isn't fully warranted), a ref would be able to put a player in time-out for 6 minutes, 8 minutes, etc. The only downside - I think it could get out of hand with some of the current NBA refs out there (i.e. players committing harder than usual fouls would be in the box for 8 minutes). Discuss.
Hockey and NBA are apples and oranges, in hockey fighting is allowed and being physical is part of the game. In the NBA, it's still "supposed" to be a non-contact sport. Plus hockey has pads and helmets galore protecting the players while NBA players have nothing to protect themselves in case of a hard foul or a skirmish breaks out. So not a good idea. We just have to trust the NBA refs of their interpretations of the rules.
Hockey 5 on 4 is a hell of a lot less of a disadvantage then basketball 5 on 4 since hockey pretty much depends on infrequent events to mark leads while in basketball, it's a constant flow of points. Pretty much every possession down the floor, you will get scored on if you're playing a NBA team 5 on 4.
I'll have to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I figured that the OP was counting on the fact that you'd be able to sub in another player in the meantime, unlike hockey.
If that's the case, then the 4th quarter would turn into a game of which scrub can get which star to retaliate and get sent to the box. No thanks.
Why wouldn't something like that happen regardless? I think its a great idea. The "basketball isn't hockey" point some people have tried to make isn't really an argument.
That would defeat the purpose of a "penalty box". A player gets called for some type of technical/flagrant foul and the other team gets a chance to stop the clock and take some free points. The player is already penalized, so stopping his game time is just another added penalty.
i doubt a penalty box would work having the game officials making the decisions during the game... however, how about a few other ideas: 1. partial suspensions - players are suspended for half-games and they then start the game with 3 fouls already. 2. players who get a technical for any confrontation not only give a free throw to the other team, but a foul is assessed also- or even a foul the next game also. flagrant fouls could count as two personal fouls (and if already at 5 fouls, then we get to assess the extra foul as 2 bonus free throws). 3. how about if a player is going to be suspended for any number of games, that the team who was playing them gets to decide which games. eg. if derek fisher's flagrant occured during the regular season, then the rockets could force him to sit out the next time they faced the rockets. or during the post-season we could make him sit whatever game during the series we chose.
This idea is making me picture Ron Artest in a cage courtside wearing a hannibal lecter mask Seriously, the game's rules are good the way they are. It does appear that they will introduce more instant replay in the coming years. That won't be that bad as long as they don't over do it!
I dont like the penalty box idea and I dont think that's exactly what Van Gundy meant. His argument was to allow for suspensions like 1 quarter or 1 half in the next game, not the current one. The idea is to give refs more flexibility in meting out punishments.
How does it defeat the purpose? You're removing that player from the available group of players that the team can use on the court for that given time span. That would be considered a "penalty".
in the NHL, once a a team scores, the guy is no longer in the penalty box......so what would the NBA do? after a couple buckets by the other team you just let the guy back in? might as well just give them some free throws and keep five on five instead of these shenanigans.
Baseball would be even better. That way either the stars play 48 minutes, or the bench has to finish the games. At least James White would get more playing time.
lol.. This would be a major advantage in basketball.. 4 on 5? I don't see that ever happening in basketball.. hockey still has a goalie.. and more than 5 players on each team. 4 on 5 in basketball would be easy money with great ball movement.. the great teams would just live off of this stuff.
