"Elam Ending" Theory to help Hacking end of games

[fairweatherfan]

Too gimmicky. A nice change of pace for lower levels but not for the NBA. Won't even end intentional fouling - say I'm at target-2 and opponent's got the ball at target-3. Immediate intentional foul. And completely eliminates buzzer-beaters and overtime.

you seem to have missed the point that the current way of ending basketball games is often awful. i and many others are tired of the last 2 minutes of game time taking 15 minutes of real time and offering little in the way of actual basketball.

the intentional foul you mention above would be a single occurance, not a drawn out drama.

as for being gimicky, aren't intentional fouls a "gimmick" to win a game, a gimmick that hurts the watchability of the game and rarely makes a difference.

did not some people consider the 3 pint shot a "gimmick" when it was brought into the game? instead, it improved the game of basketball. elam's ending may do so as well.

as for losing overtime, yes, it would go away. since the number of bad endings outnumber by far over times, it is a tradeoff i will take.

and as far as drama from a buzzer beater, it would exist, but would be dictated by score and not be dictated by time. target score is 87, each team is at 85.  it is sudden death!!

i like this idea.

I haven't missed the point, I'm saying this is more awful more often.

And this isn't going to do a thing about timeouts, which are the biggest driver of the endgame taking longer. Heck get a cold streak, especially from a team that entered the period way up, and games will take even longer.

[fairweatherfan]

Here’s a radical idea, do something about the intentional foul. If a player is intentionally fouled, the player shoots one free throw and his team gets the ball back. If a player is intentionally fouled away from the ball, his team gets to decide who shoots the free throw and the team gets the ball back too. In this case, there is no gimmick and also no incentive to intentionally foul either. To me, this idea seems like a no brainer that should have been used years ago.

How do you determine intent in a way that can be consistently applied?

Sure some fouls are clearly intentional, but players will start making them look less intentional the instant this change is made. If a team's playing physical defense because they're behind and can't "intentionally" foul, what's the border between a foul that's slightly below being considered intentional and one that's slightly above it? Establishing true intent requires telepathy, which means refs will have to guess nearly every time. Plus the injury risk goes up now that defenders have to make fouls "look real" which generally translates to "more contact with less control".

[footey]

I'd like to see it in practice before judging it. I see its potential. Obviously it would be more than 8 points after the 4 minute mark. More like 16.

[ETNCeltics]

Here’s a radical idea, do something about the intentional foul. If a player is intentionally fouled, the player shoots one free throw and his team gets the ball back. If a player is intentionally fouled away from the ball, his team gets to decide who shoots the free throw and the team gets the ball back too. In this case, there is no gimmick and also no incentive to intentionally foul either. To me, this idea seems like a no brainer that should have been used years ago.

How do you determine intent in a way that can be consistently applied?

Sure some fouls are clearly intentional, but players will start making them look less intentional the instant this change is made. If a team's playing physical defense because they're behind and can't "intentionally" foul, what's the border between a foul that's slightly below being considered intentional and one that's slightly above it? Establishing true intent requires telepathy, which means refs will have to guess nearly every time. Plus the injury risk goes up now that defenders have to make fouls "look real" which generally translates to "more contact with less control".

The way to simplify that is any foul that isn't an offensive foul and isn't a shooting foul, means 1 FT plus the ball. That would virtually eliminate end of game fouling. Maybe allow 1 non-shooting foul in the last 2 minutes, but then any others and it's 1 plus the ball.

[rondofan1255]

Reminds me of when MLB proposed a rule change in 2017 to automatically place a runner at second base in extra innings. Another cheap shortcut that hasn't happened, thankfully. All in the interest of shortening the game...

Major League Baseball plans on testing a rule change in the lowest levels of the minor leagues this season that automatically would place a runner on second base at the start of extra innings, a distinct break from the game’s orthodoxy that nonetheless has wide-ranging support at the highest levels of the league, sources familiar with the plan told Yahoo Sports.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-plans-to-test-new-extra-innings-rules-in-rookie-ball-with-joe-torres-approval-224914115.html

And this isn't going to do a thing about timeouts, which are the biggest driver of the endgame taking longer.

Exactly. Timeouts and video reviews.

[gouki88]

I prefer buzzer beaters and OT

[KG Living Legend]

 I wanted to add that we all have been playing basketball like this our whole lives.

 We used to Play games to 15 or to 21. A set score. Gotta win by Two points.
 
 So in a way, it's familiar to all of us.

[fairweatherfan]

Here’s a radical idea, do something about the intentional foul. If a player is intentionally fouled, the player shoots one free throw and his team gets the ball back. If a player is intentionally fouled away from the ball, his team gets to decide who shoots the free throw and the team gets the ball back too. In this case, there is no gimmick and also no incentive to intentionally foul either. To me, this idea seems like a no brainer that should have been used years ago.

How do you determine intent in a way that can be consistently applied?

Sure some fouls are clearly intentional, but players will start making them look less intentional the instant this change is made. If a team's playing physical defense because they're behind and can't "intentionally" foul, what's the border between a foul that's slightly below being considered intentional and one that's slightly above it? Establishing true intent requires telepathy, which means refs will have to guess nearly every time. Plus the injury risk goes up now that defenders have to make fouls "look real" which generally translates to "more contact with less control".

The way to simplify that is any foul that isn't an offensive foul and isn't a shooting foul, means 1 FT plus the ball. That would virtually eliminate end of game fouling. Maybe allow 1 non-shooting foul in the last 2 minutes, but then any others and it's 1 plus the ball.

Yeah but now a team that's behind can't play aggressive defense to try and force turnovers. Especially late in the shot clock 1+the ball can be devastating to a team's chances. Strong incentive to be relatively passive, and the same goes for the team that's leading - a non-shooting foul could turn a 2 possession lead into 1. And man just imagine things like guys begging to NOT have fouls called on the shot.

The 1 to give would help a bit but it still just seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[PhoSita]

Too gimmicky. A nice change of pace for lower levels but not for the NBA. Won't even end intentional fouling - say I'm at target-2 and opponent's got the ball at target-3. Immediate intentional foul. And completely eliminates buzzer-beaters and overtime.

I agree, it's too gimmicky and arbitrary. 

[ETNCeltics]

Here’s a radical idea, do something about the intentional foul. If a player is intentionally fouled, the player shoots one free throw and his team gets the ball back. If a player is intentionally fouled away from the ball, his team gets to decide who shoots the free throw and the team gets the ball back too. In this case, there is no gimmick and also no incentive to intentionally foul either. To me, this idea seems like a no brainer that should have been used years ago.

How do you determine intent in a way that can be consistently applied?

Sure some fouls are clearly intentional, but players will start making them look less intentional the instant this change is made. If a team's playing physical defense because they're behind and can't "intentionally" foul, what's the border between a foul that's slightly below being considered intentional and one that's slightly above it? Establishing true intent requires telepathy, which means refs will have to guess nearly every time. Plus the injury risk goes up now that defenders have to make fouls "look real" which generally translates to "more contact with less control".

The way to simplify that is any foul that isn't an offensive foul and isn't a shooting foul, means 1 FT plus the ball. That would virtually eliminate end of game fouling. Maybe allow 1 non-shooting foul in the last 2 minutes, but then any others and it's 1 plus the ball.

Yeah but now a defense that's behind can't play aggressive defense to try and force turnovers. Especially late in the shot clock 1+the ball can be devastating to a team's chances. Strong incentive to be relatively passive, and the same goes for the team that's leading - a non-shooting foul could turn a 2 possession lead into 1. And man just imagine things like guys begging to NOT have fouls called on the shot.

The 1 to give would help a bit but it still just seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Perhaps somewhat, but I don’t see any idea worse than telling a team that built a big lead that they have to leave their starters in and keep scoring under an entirely new set of rules.

[fairweatherfan]

Here’s a radical idea, do something about the intentional foul. If a player is intentionally fouled, the player shoots one free throw and his team gets the ball back. If a player is intentionally fouled away from the ball, his team gets to decide who shoots the free throw and the team gets the ball back too. In this case, there is no gimmick and also no incentive to intentionally foul either. To me, this idea seems like a no brainer that should have been used years ago.

How do you determine intent in a way that can be consistently applied?

Sure some fouls are clearly intentional, but players will start making them look less intentional the instant this change is made. If a team's playing physical defense because they're behind and can't "intentionally" foul, what's the border between a foul that's slightly below being considered intentional and one that's slightly above it? Establishing true intent requires telepathy, which means refs will have to guess nearly every time. Plus the injury risk goes up now that defenders have to make fouls "look real" which generally translates to "more contact with less control".

The way to simplify that is any foul that isn't an offensive foul and isn't a shooting foul, means 1 FT plus the ball. That would virtually eliminate end of game fouling. Maybe allow 1 non-shooting foul in the last 2 minutes, but then any others and it's 1 plus the ball.

Yeah but now a defense that's behind can't play aggressive defense to try and force turnovers. Especially late in the shot clock 1+the ball can be devastating to a team's chances. Strong incentive to be relatively passive, and the same goes for the team that's leading - a non-shooting foul could turn a 2 possession lead into 1. And man just imagine things like guys begging to NOT have fouls called on the shot.

The 1 to give would help a bit but it still just seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Perhaps somewhat, but I don’t see any idea worse than telling a team that built a big lead that they have to leave their starters in and keep scoring under an entirely new set of rules.

100% on board with that.

And I didn't even think about the fact that garbage time would drop drastically - you could put scrubs in to run some time with a big 4th quarter lead, but you don't want to rely on them to get you 8 before the other team makes it uncomfortably tight.

[Green-18]

I don't see a real problem with the intentional fouling.  It can get annoying at times, but the overall product is excellent right now.  Making any sort of change wouldn't move the needle in a positive direction, at least not after the gimmick wears off on everyone.

The quality of the product throughout a full 48 minutes is what matters.  I'm not going to tune out of an entertaining game just because the flow gets disrupted by late game fouling.  At that point I'm emotionally invested in the outcome and/or possibility for a dramatic finish.  On the other hand, it can get really difficult to sit through a game where both teams are in constant foul trouble.   

[bellerephon]

I don't see a real problem with the intentional fouling.  It can get annoying at times, but the overall product is excellent right now.  Making any sort of change wouldn't move the needle in a positive direction, at least not after the gimmick wears off on everyone.

The quality of the product throughout a full 48 minutes is what matters.  I'm not going to tune out of an entertaining game just because the flow gets disrupted by late game fouling.  At that point I'm emotionally invested in the outcome and/or possibility for a dramatic finish.  On the other hand, it can get really difficult to sit through a game where both teams are in constant foul trouble.

I understand the point about the full 48 minutes, but I don't agree that end game fouling is no problem. Some games become almost unwatchable in the last few minutes. I do agree that they should not enact something gimmicky like the Elam ending, but there are simple things they could do that would help. Making an intentional foul result in one free throw plus keeping possession would do it.

[KG Living Legend]

I don't see a real problem with the intentional fouling.  It can get annoying at times, but the overall product is excellent right now.  Making any sort of change wouldn't move the needle in a positive direction, at least not after the gimmick wears off on everyone.

The quality of the product throughout a full 48 minutes is what matters.  I'm not going to tune out of an entertaining game just because the flow gets disrupted by late game fouling.  At that point I'm emotionally invested in the outcome and/or possibility for a dramatic finish.  On the other hand, it can get really difficult to sit through a game where both teams are in constant foul trouble.

I understand the point about the full 48 minutes, but I don't agree that end game fouling is no problem. Some games become almost unwatchable in the last few minutes. I do agree that they should not enact something gimmicky like the Elam ending, but there are simple things they could do that would help. Making an intentional foul result in one free throw plus keeping possession would do it.

 TP Belle.

 Good idea. Let's think of some solutions to this glaring issue

[SHAQATTACK]

get ready forrrr..er


HACK A TaCKO