Idea for Discussion: Allowing Teams to Decline Fouls

[Eja117]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

[Big333223]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

Sure but if that was enough to keep teams from breaking the rules, then there wouldn't be free throws. Obviously it's not enough, in general. Giving a team the option ensures that the other team is always being punished for breaking the rules.

[Eja117]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

Sure but if that was enough to keep teams from breaking the rules, then there wouldn't be free throws. Obviously it's not enough, in general. Giving a team the option ensures that the other team is always being punished for breaking the rules.

That's one way of looking at it but it's a tremendous change to the game of basketball. By this logic teams also shouldn't be allowed to foul towards the end of the game to slow the clock and try to catch up. Good free throw shooters become less valuable. It would be like if in baseball you make intentional walks against the rules or something. Or pulling a goalie illegal in hockey.

This is the way the rule has always been and the way it should always stay.

[Big333223]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

Sure but if that was enough to keep teams from breaking the rules, then there wouldn't be free throws. Obviously it's not enough, in general. Giving a team the option ensures that the other team is always being punished for breaking the rules.

That's one way of looking at it but it's a tremendous change to the game of basketball. By this logic teams also shouldn't be allowed to foul towards the end of the game to slow the clock and try to catch up. Good free throw shooters become less valuable. It would be like if in baseball you make intentional walks against the rules or something. Or pulling a goalie illegal in hockey.

This is the way the rule has always been and the way it should always stay.

1. I'm unswayed by the argument "it should be this way because this is the way it is."

2. Nor am I swayed by the idea that we shouldn't change a rule because it would change other things about the game. Obviously that happens with every rule change. If teams can't stop the clock by forcing free throws, is the game better or worse? I could pretty easily argue its better.

[Eja117]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

Sure but if that was enough to keep teams from breaking the rules, then there wouldn't be free throws. Obviously it's not enough, in general. Giving a team the option ensures that the other team is always being punished for breaking the rules.

That's one way of looking at it but it's a tremendous change to the game of basketball. By this logic teams also shouldn't be allowed to foul towards the end of the game to slow the clock and try to catch up. Good free throw shooters become less valuable. It would be like if in baseball you make intentional walks against the rules or something. Or pulling a goalie illegal in hockey.

This is the way the rule has always been and the way it should always stay.

1. I'm unswayed by the argument "it should be this way because this is the way it is."

2. Nor am I swayed by the idea that we shouldn't change a rule because it would change other things about the game. Obviously that happens with every rule change. If teams can't stop the clock by forcing free throws, is the game better or worse? I could pretty easily argue its better.

Let me be slightly more clear. The rule shouldn't change till there is a compelling reason to do so. There isn't right now

[Rakulp]

It almost goes hand in hand with the baseball argument that instead of throwing four balls for an intentional walk, you just wave your hand and the batter goes to first base.

Sometimes, things happen in those situations...in baseball, you might see a wild pitch or even a batter take a swing if the pitch isn't far enough outside the strike zone.

In basketball, maybe a poor shooting player hits 6 free throws in a row?

Miracles do happen!



Rak

[Big333223]

Teams with terrible free throw shooters or terrible coaches shouldn't be rewarded. I know some people feel really bad for DeAndre Jordan and feel terrible that for some reason Doc gives him the ball or keeps him in the game in critical scenarios at the end of the game but I don't feel bad for the Clippers at all.

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores the purpose of the foul shots. The reason teams are awarded free throws is to punish the team that comitted a violation. If a team comitts a violation but the other team can't make free throws, then the other team doesn't get punished for breaking the rule. To me, that means the punishment has to change.

They still incur a foul so they do get punished

Sure but if that was enough to keep teams from breaking the rules, then there wouldn't be free throws. Obviously it's not enough, in general. Giving a team the option ensures that the other team is always being punished for breaking the rules.

That's one way of looking at it but it's a tremendous change to the game of basketball. By this logic teams also shouldn't be allowed to foul towards the end of the game to slow the clock and try to catch up. Good free throw shooters become less valuable. It would be like if in baseball you make intentional walks against the rules or something. Or pulling a goalie illegal in hockey.

This is the way the rule has always been and the way it should always stay.

1. I'm unswayed by the argument "it should be this way because this is the way it is."

2. Nor am I swayed by the idea that we shouldn't change a rule because it would change other things about the game. Obviously that happens with every rule change. If teams can't stop the clock by forcing free throws, is the game better or worse? I could pretty easily argue its better.

Let me be slightly more clear. The rule shouldn't change till there is a compelling reason to do so. There isn't right now

So I guess we just disagree there. I think the hacking is an exploitation of the rule and bad for the game. That's a compelling enough for me.

[action781]

I agree with the idea mentioned that committing a foul should never benefit one's team.  I don't think it would be good for the game, but from a pure competition/theory perspective I also ideally would like to see trailing teams not allowed to foul at the end of a game in order to catch up.  Similar to how a team can't just jump offsides in the NFL in the last two minutes to stop the clock.  Never would happen, but I kind of would like to see the end of games speed up.

[guava_wrench]

I have long endorsed this concept. There would still be a whistle and a stoppage of play, but teams can decline to shoot the fouls and can take the ball out instead. Declining a shooting foul should not reset the shot clock.

My support of this change has nothing to do with poor free throw shooters. It is based on my philosophy that ability to use fouls for strategic gains should be minimized as fouls should represent what you aren't supposed to do. Sure, this will benefit poor free throw shooters, but it will also benefit teams that need a 3 to tie in the final seconds when defenses will often foul them on purpose from 2.