Elimination of One and One

[VeloClone]

correct. if the shot went in the defense did not gain an unfair advantage.

I don't think this is better for the game. There is less incentive to play it clean since there is no outcome that really costs you in end of game situations where a player is not at risk of fouling out. If you hack a player attempting a layup and he misses it you win because he has to earn it at the line. If he makes it you still win because you took your chance, willfully broke the rules and paid no penalty for it. The whole idea of fouls is to penalize teams and players for breaking the rules.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

I don't think this is better for the game. There is less incentive to play it clean since there is no outcome that really costs you in end of game situations where a player is not at risk of fouling out. If you hack a player attempting a layup and he misses it you win because he has to earn it at the line. If he makes it you still win because you took your chance, willfully broke the rules and paid no penalty for it. The whole idea of fouls is to penalize teams and players for breaking the rules.

a related question. if there is a pass interference in the end zone but the receiver still catches it why is the penalty ignored?

 

[rholtgraves]

I agree. I don't like it either.

 

[chuckd4735]

Why not just give the team an option to go into the one and one or inbound the ball in the same manner you do with fouls 1-6? Seems like an easy fix.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

Why not just give the team an option to go into the one and one or inbound the ball in the same manner you do with fouls 1-6? Seems like an easy fix.

maybe this is the best option. would eliminate hack-a-shaq and give real power to the offended team.

 

[VeloClone]

a related question. if there is a pass interference in the end zone but the receiver still catches it why is the penalty ignored?

Pass interference is contact that is allowed in football but the timing of the contact results in the penalty. Most fouls that would result in an "and one" in basketball are contact that is not allowed at any time in the game. Just like in football there generally are stiffer penalties for acts that are intentional (holding - 10 yards) than acts that are illegal but not willful (false start - 5 yards). If the CB did any of the many things that are not allowed at anytime in football and are physical in nature - personal fouls, they would be assessed after awarding the touchdown.

Anyway, basketball is not football.

 

[Cycsk]

An even better solution would be to stop calling the inconsequential fouls unless they affect the play (like resulting in a turnover, a missed shot or some form of hard contact). I'd guess that 5 fouls a game per team minimum have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a game.

I don't like the idea of calling fouls based on consequences.

First, the calls should be made by the ref before the consequences are known. Of course, they can be waived off, but I hate the thought of a ref waiting to see if the ball goes in before he calls a foul.

Second, making calls based on consequences gets into so much more ambiguity and judgment calls.

Third, it promotes excessive fouling in situations where you don't have anything to lose. I envision lots of fouling on breakaways that could greatly increase risk of injury.

Those are a few thoughts.

 

[mywayorcyway]

Just go to quarters in NCAA men's basketball and make the game more similar to the NBA and every other level of basketball.

Making college hoops more similar to the NBA is my biggest fear. I love college hoops. I hate the NBA. I don't want to see quarters, six fouls, and definitely not a 24 second shot clock.

The NCAA made some excellent rule changes a couple of years ago. It's fine. Leave it alone.

 

[Clones8686]

Making college hoops more similar to the NBA is my biggest fear. I love college hoops. I hate the NBA. I don't want to see quarters, six fouls, and definitely not a 24 second shot clock.

The NCAA made some excellent rule changes a couple of years ago. It's fine. Leave it alone.

I absolutely love NCAA basketball, way more than the NBA, but I went to a Nuggets game a couple weeks ago and it was amazing how little down time there was. It was such a breath of fresh air after all the college games I go to where it's just a slog, especially at the end. In that respect, I think the NCAA would do well to try to imitate the NBA.

 

[Dingus]

I don't get why any non shooting foul results in FTs to be honest. Why turn an exciting game of basketball into a boring FT shooting contest?

But at least get rid of the 1 and 1. I hate that rule.

Also, can someone explain how going to quarters helps? Is this just resetting the # needed to arrive at the 1 and 1?

 

[Doc]

Rather than go to six fouls, I'd like to see some coaches stop being a bunch of ******* when it comes to playing certain guys in foul trouble.

 

[Doc]

Assuming a 70% FT shooter, no ORBs and me not sucking at math, a 1-and-1 gives you an expected point total of 1.19. That doesn't like much of a punishment for fouling to me.

60% - 0.96 pt expectancy
80% - 1.44 pt expectancy (that seems awfully low for a great FT shooter)

 

[ruxCYtable]

here is the ultimate rule change. if the basket goes in the foul doe not count. a foul is because it gives the defensive player an unfair advantage. if the ball goes in there really wasn't an unfair advantage gained. so let them play on.

Jim Bain -- yes, THAT Jim Bain -- used to advocate this very thing. He would write a letter to the NCAA rules committee every year about it using your same logic. Jim was a staunch advantage/disadvantage guy, basically no harm-no foul (Kevin Boyle might beg to differ). He used to say,"A foul is a serious penalty. They only let you have five of them before they kick you out of the game."

I'm not 100% sure if he was serious or not, or just trying to make a point. I don't know if it would be good for the game because you could just send a goon in to hack the crap out of everybody.

 

[ca4cy]

here is the ultimate rule change. if the basket goes in the foul doe not count. a foul is because it gives the defensive player an unfair advantage. if the ball goes in there really wasn't an unfair advantage gained. so let them play on.

The positive here would be that we wouldn't have to hear players yell AAAANNNND OOOONNNNEEE 10 times a game.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

Jim Bain -- yes, THAT Jim Bain -- used to advocate this very thing. He would write a letter to the NCAA rules committee every year about it using your same logic. Jim was a staunch advantage/disadvantage guy, basically no harm-no foul (Kevin Boyle might beg to differ). He used to say,"A foul is a serious penalty. They only let you have five of them before they kick you out of the game."

I'm not 100% sure if he was serious or not, or just trying to make a point. I don't know if it would be good for the game because you could just send a goon in to hack the crap out of everybody.

You can do that now

 

[Bryce7]

Six fouls makes absolutely no sense. In the NBA players get 6 fouls in 48 minutes of game time or a foul for every 8 minutes. In NCAA players get 5 fouls in 40 minutes of game time or a foul every 8 minutes of game time.

College players deserve six fouls because there is always at least one crap vote per player per game called by by our supposedly astute refs of B12.

 

[Incyte]

Three halves, seven fouls. Easy fix.

 

[IsuStu]

If we're going to change a rule related to fouling, it should be the addition of a 6th foul before disqualification. Sure, that would give Huggy 50 potential fouls before fouling anyone out, but it would be an equalizer for teams that have less depth in any given area, and would make the games better.

An even better solution would be to stop calling the inconsequential fouls unless they affect the play (like resulting in a turnover, a missed shot or some form of hard contact). I'd guess that 5 fouls a game per team minimum have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a game.

I would prefer that the NCAA adopt the old NBA rule that gave shooters three free throw attempts to make two free throws for backcourt fouls over the limit to penalize teams like WVU from turning games into three hour hackfests, especially if they play a nationally televised game that airs immediately before us