118Re: Cha at Mil, 5/20
- May 28, 2001--- In APBR_analysis@y..., msg_53@h... wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:desperation.
> I would definitely like to see
> > them call hard fouls the way they should. Throw people out much
> > often, as far as I'm concerned.
> I don't like the idea of ejecting players, except in
> If a star player or 2, or 3, are gone, the game is hardly worthgenerally
> watching. Like locking up criminals and throwing away the key, in
> practice it doesn't work.
> Giving the damaged party 2 or 3 or 4 FTs, all the while the
> opposing coach is chewing out his player, would be better.
> Putting the onus on the refs, to eject Shaq in LA, would
> result in no penalty at all. Ejection is so "all-or-nothing". Howball
> to throw out the bathwater without tossing the baby.]
> How about this rule: first team flagrant foul = 2 FT and the
> out; 2nd team flagrant = 4 FT and the ball; etc...I guess this is a sociological issue, isn't it? Increase the penalty
> What we want is that the game not get out of hand, right?
or the likelihood of getting caught. I took a class once called the
Economics of Crime. Very interesting studies of tax evaders and how
to deter tax crime, among other things. A general conclusion of the
profs was that increasing the likelihood of getting caught was the
greatest deterrent in avoiding crime -- not increasing the penalty.
Making the analogy to basketball, this would imply that flagrant
fouls actually get called, not that we increase the penalty for them.
I'm not convinced this is right because it is so ingrained in
players now that 2 fta's plus the ball is still not as bad as giving
up a layup. Maybe.
What I want is not that the game get out of hand, but there is not a
reward for fouling in a layup situation, which there is now.
Journal of Basketball Studies.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>