Make all shooting fouls 1 for 1

[newdusk]

I believe this is a good way to both speed up the game of basketball and also forces a player to earn every basket. When a superstar goes to the line he gets two free shots and its assuming had he not been fouled he would have made his basket.

The other thing this may do is limit the effect of "superstar calls" percentage wise players are still more likely to make the 2 free throws but it still puts on added pressure. If they get fouled on the three point line then its a 1-1-1 situation.

[crownsy]

I'm fine with how it is.

I think its fine the way it is now, plus we already get to see this variant in college.

[newdusk]

What I'm suggesting is the elimination of the 2 shot foul all together. I know college has the 1 for 1. I think this is a good way to at least curb the effect officials have on an NBA game. It's not a solution by any means.

[crownsy]

What I'm suggesting is the elimination of the 2 shot foul all together. I know college has the 1 for 1. I think this is a good way to at least curb the effect officials have on an NBA game. It's not a solution by any means.

I just don't see what it adds. I guess it would make good FT shooters more valuable, for sure, and lower the score of games, but I don't think it would curb calls or make officals less likely to call fouls for stars.

As to speeding the game up, outside of the tediously long national TV games, i'm cool with 2-2 and a half hours, as they are now.

[BballTim]

I believe this is a good way to both speed up the game of basketball and also forces a player to earn every basket. When a superstar goes to the line he gets two free shots and its assuming had he not been fouled he would have made his basket.

The other thing this may do is limit the effect of "superstar calls" percentage wise players are still more likely to make the 2 free throws but it still puts on added pressure. If they get fouled on the three point line then its a 1-1-1 situation.

  You won't speed up the game, you'll worsen it. If you lessen the penalty for fouling then there will be more fouling, more  time at the foul line and much fewer actual made baskets.

[BrickJames]

How bout no?

[Stu]

I believe it's called a "1-and-1."  And I'm with Brick.

[RAcker]

What I'm suggesting is the elimination of the 2 shot foul all together. I know college has the 1 for 1. I think this is a good way to at least curb the effect officials have on an NBA game. It's not a solution by any means.

How about they switch to 1's and 2's?  And how about they play on ice skates?  And how about...err...this would change the entire game of basketball?  I vote no, of course.

[Stu]

What I'm suggesting is the elimination of the 2 shot foul all together. I know college has the 1 for 1. I think this is a good way to at least curb the effect officials have on an NBA game. It's not a solution by any means.

How about they switch to 1's and 2's?  And how about they play on ice skates?  And how about...err...this would change the entire game of basketball?  I vote no, of course.

TP

[johnnyrondo]

How about just how every hitter has the same strike zone in baseball, whether rookie or all-star, every NBA player should get fouls and draw fouls equally?

[RAcker]

How about just how every hitter has the same strike zone in baseball, whether rookie or all-star, every NBA player should get fouls and draw fouls equally?

Ok, David Stern will be fining you shortly.   

[guava_wrench]

I believe this is a good way to both speed up the game of basketball and also forces a player to earn every basket. When a superstar goes to the line he gets two free shots and its assuming had he not been fouled he would have made his basket.

The other thing this may do is limit the effect of "superstar calls" percentage wise players are still more likely to make the 2 free throws but it still puts on added pressure. If they get fouled on the three point line then its a 1-1-1 situation.

It doesn't make people earn the basket. It just makes the game boring because teams can get away with fouling more instead of playing defense.

Why would you want to do anything that would lead to more stoppages of play and more hacking?

I do not believe there is a problem with "superstar calls". What there really is in the NBA is a few players that few players can defend cleanly. Why would we want to try to prop up the lesser talents by letting them hack their way into a roster spot?

Why are you trying to make Pierce's life more difficult. He has a hard enough time with his free throws and he is someone that gets a lot of calls -- what you would call "superstar calls".

[guava_wrench]

What I'm suggesting is the elimination of the 2 shot foul all together. I know college has the 1 for 1. I think this is a good way to at least curb the effect officials have on an NBA game. It's not a solution by any means.

"Effect officials have"?

Uh, no.

You are trying to make the rules have less of an effect on the game. If you want to get rid of fouls, I don't see the point.

Isn't 1 and 1 in college for non-shooting fouls? I do believe that when a team is in the penalty, there is no more 1 and 1.

1 and 1 is only good for allowing cheap comebacks by hacking.

[Hoops]

I believe this is a good way to both speed up the game of basketball and also forces a player to earn every basket. When a superstar goes to the line he gets two free shots and its assuming had he not been fouled he would have made his basket.

The other thing this may do is limit the effect of "superstar calls" percentage wise players are still more likely to make the 2 free throws but it still puts on added pressure. If they get fouled on the three point line then its a 1-1-1 situation.

  You won't speed up the game, you'll worsen it. If you lessen the penalty for fouling then there will be more fouling, more  time at the foul line and much fewer actual made baskets.

Exactly. Mathematically, you'd foul every time down the court knowing that the most the other team would score is 1 point (assuming they're 100% on their free throws). So it simply devolves into a free throw shooting contest, not a basketball game.

A better suggestion might be to award 3 foul shots on 2-ptrs. and 4 foul shots on 3-ptrs. That would deter people from fouling and really open up the game. You can already see how that logic applies to fouling 3 pt. shooters. Coaches don't mind giving up a foul on a 2 pt. shot, but it's the sin of all sins to foul a 3 pt. shooter...

[BballTim]

I believe this is a good way to both speed up the game of basketball and also forces a player to earn every basket. When a superstar goes to the line he gets two free shots and its assuming had he not been fouled he would have made his basket.

The other thing this may do is limit the effect of "superstar calls" percentage wise players are still more likely to make the 2 free throws but it still puts on added pressure. If they get fouled on the three point line then its a 1-1-1 situation.

  You won't speed up the game, you'll worsen it. If you lessen the penalty for fouling then there will be more fouling, more  time at the foul line and much fewer actual made baskets.

Exactly. Mathematically, you'd foul every time down the court knowing that the most the other team would score is 1 point (assuming they're 100% on their free throws). So it simply devolves into a free throw shooting contest, not a basketball game.

A better suggestion might be to award 3 foul shots on 2-ptrs. and 4 foul shots on 3-ptrs. That would deter people from fouling and really open up the game. You can already see how that logic applies to fouling 3 pt. shooters. Coaches don't mind giving up a foul on a 2 pt. shot, but it's the sin of all sins to foul a 3 pt. shooter...

  Kind of an aside, but do people remember the "3 to make 2" foul shooting in the ABA? They had the same 1 and 1 for too many team fouls but if you got to  like double the penalty they gave an extra ft to the shooter if he missed one. Kind of a "don't go crazy with the fouls" rule.