Vitale on fouling out

[bierce]

I wasn't listening during the end of the Georgetown loss to Davidson, but apparently Vitale has revived his comment that college basketball needs to lose the foul out rule. Last year, after the Georgetown-tOSU game, he said college should go to 6 fouls, but the player can stay in and subsequent fouls are two shots and ball. This morning on the radio, he amended the proposal to make the 6th foul the point at which two free throws and ball are awarded.
The Link

Of course, one might think that part of a coach's job is to get players to play defense (and offense) without excessive fouling and to adjust the game according to foul situations. But such things have no business in preventing schools keeping their enforcers on the floor, I guess.

OK, can the players take a folding chair onto the court or hide a weapon in the elastic band of their shorts?

If a particularly foul prone 300+ pounder could play without any brakes, would we see a game in which the other team wouldn't be able to put 5 men on the floor for the second half?

 

[forshizzzle]

The penalty of two shots plus the ball is pretty stiff such that coaches wouldn't be rewarded by sending out goons who wouldn't be able to stay out of foul trouble.

It's an interesting idea, and I agree that I hate seeing players foul out, but I don't see it happening. I also don't see it having the effects you think such a rule change might have.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Worst idea ever and it doesn't surprise me that it comes from a Big East apologist.

 

[Bob in Houston]

The ABA had the no-foul-out rule right before the merger. It didn't have a huge impact on the game because the penalty is severe. I'd be OK with it.

 

[Hobbes2702]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[S197HQQKEM]

I wonder what the salad bar berzerker would have to say on that.

 

[LakeErieHorn]

It is a needless change proposed by a has-been coach turned slap-stick announcer. Fouling and the use of fouls gives basketball a strategic element. If you team is slow, lacks footwork or has trouble with fundamentals in the paint, then fouls will stack up. However, in the case of a team like Texas, aggressive fast paced defense and excellent skills generally gives us the advantage.

If you ever played UIL basketball in West Texas, you know that refs call games quite different than when you get into Regional and State tournaments. It affects everyone equally and you have to adjust.

I would rather her Keith Jackson sling together a hundred mixed metaphors than take any suggestion from Dick Vitale.

 

[Pancho Negro]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Texas Wahoo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hobbes2702]

Oh my bad. Missed the part about them getting the ball. Still a stupid rule I think. If you are not good enough to play defense without fouling then you don't deserve a bunch of extra chances to stay on the court.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bob in Houston]

The impact of the rule would not be at the end of the game as much as during it. Now, if a guy gets two fouls in three minutes, most of the time he'll sit the half, or most of it. If this rule were in place, it probably wouldn't affect the strategy that much. He might sit, but not the bulk of the half. Another foul wouldn't be that big a deal. And if he gets two fouls in the first 10 minutes of the second half (at which point he would have fouled out), the question would become whether he will score or prevent more points while in the game than he would give up on fouls.

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bierce]

I wonder what someone would have said if I had made reference to padded turnbuckles?

 

[forshizzzle]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Beau Vine]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MeaHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[jimmyjazz]

As I heard it, this was Vitale's "solution" to the problem of poor officiating putting stars on the bench. If in fact officiating is the problem, why not just fix the officiating?

For the record, I'm not sure officiating is the problem.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[forshizzzle]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bullzak]

Well I just remember the OSU-Georgetown game last year when the clash of titans turned into the clash of centers who sat the bench because some trigger happy refs took over the game right at the outset. I think Oden and Hibbert each had two fouls in the first couple minutes. It was just a bad scene for college basketball.

Officiating is spotty at best in the college game and its a shame that a whole season can be lost on some ticky tack fouls.

Dont know if Vitales method is the best, but 5 fouls isnt enough if a ref can easily blow two of them and put a player on the bench.

 

[Drew Shirley]

Adding a 6th foul would be okay, but I'd actually like to see the FT rules simplified to this:

non-shooting foul: out of bounds until 7 team fouls, then 1-and-1
shooting foul: 2 shots
technical or flagrant foul: 2 shots and the ball

I'd get rid of the 2 shots after 10 FTs. Let's make FT shooting even more important -- with a greater penalty for missing -- and maybe some of these kids will start practicing FTs.

I'd also get rid of the 'intentional foul' rule, which is dumb because everyone knows the fouls at the end of the game to stop the clock are intentional.

 

[AFhorn82]

Maybe this deserves a whole new threa but what about moving the three point line back? Maybe not to NBA range but didn't they run a few exhibition games this year with the 3 point line back about a foot and half?

 

[Bluepies]

"Good foul" should be an oxymoron. It should never be advantageous to foul.

If you're worried about stars sitting on the bench, maybe they need to learn how to play without fouling. It's like learning how to drive without speeding, how to ride a bike without falling, how to eat without stabbing yourself in the face with the fork. The solution isn't knee pads for biking or a face guard for eating, it's learning how to do it correctly. If you can't play without fouling, maybe you weren't very good in the first place.

Yes, the referees suck. Get better ones. Paying them more may bring some incentive for more people to try to be a good enough referee to do NCAA games. Is there enough money? There better be with all the TV timeouts to make more money off commercials.

My rule changes:
1. Actually call intentional fouls. Practically every foul in the last two minutes is intentional, and everybody knows it.
2. Intentional fouls get two shots and the ball (if they don't already; I've never seen one called). No more of this "foul every ten seconds and maybe we'll catch up" crap. If you're down by 12 with two minutes to go, yes, you'll probably lose. Tough. You should've played better for the first 38 minutes. And the last two minutes will no longer be a 15-20 minute free throw contest; endings of games will actually be exciting.
3. If someone's fouled on a breakaway (for example, from behind at midcourt with no one in front of them), and it's not intentional (see above), don't call the foul, just let the player get the guaranteed two points. Otherwise, the fouling team is at an advantage since the would-be scorer might miss a free throw. In soccer, this rule is called "play advantage." I think hockey has a similar rule.
4. Technical fouls also count as personal fouls.
5. This one's off topic, but each team gets only three timeouts.
6. Also off topic, push the three-point line back to the international line (between college and NBA). 22-year old men shouldn't have the same three-point line as middle school girls.

Make teams and players pay for fouling. It shouldn't be a strategy.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[cochamps]

Did I just dream that they are moving the 3 point line back to 20'9" next year?

I could've sworn I saw they were moving it back a foot, but no one else has mentioned it.