Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Intentional fouls

Expand Messages
  • McKibbin, Stuart
    Michael Tamada said: Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 26, 2002
      Michael Tamada said: "Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will
      adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in the last
      two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-make-2.
      Regardless of the team foul situation and whether the person with the ball
      is shooting or not. Or the foullee gets just one free throw -- but his
      team gets to keep possession afterward. That'd reduce the deliberate
      foulling......More extreme would be make all defensive fouls, even the first ones in a
      quarter, worth foul shots..."

      I was listening to Laker "colorman" Stu Lantz and he said there was a time when teams DID shoot freethrows on the first four fouls in the quarter even if the player wasn't fouled in the act of shooting. I checked my NBA Encyclopedia and I could find nothing on THAT rule change, although there was mention of other rule changes. Assuming Mr. Lantz isn't making things up, does anybody know what year the rule change was made?

      I don't object to teams fouling in the LAST TWO MINUTES to get the ball back and trying to outscore the opponent by making 3's when he's only making 2's---it lengthens the game slightly, and screws up the spread and the over/under if you're betting, but that's it. The Hack a Shaq rule---you intentionally foul somebody without the ball in the last 2 minutes the other team gets 1 and the ball---is a good change.

      What I object to are fouls taken without making any play on the ball, like a man beats you to the rack and you shove him in the back, or Shaq gets the ball close to the basket and you bearhug him or use pepper spray. Those situations should all be 1 and the ball. The rules should encourage people to PLAY BASKETBALL.
    • Michael K. Tamada
      On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote: [...] ... There was a time when a foul meant that the foulee got only one free throw. Teams took advantage of
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 28, 2002
        On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:

        [...]

        > I was listening to Laker "colorman" Stu Lantz and he said there was a time when teams DID shoot freethrows on the first four fouls in the quarter even if the player wasn't fouled in the act of shooting. I checked my NBA Encyclopedia and I could find nothing on THAT rule change, although there was mention of other rule changes. Assuming Mr. Lantz isn't making things up, does anybody know what year the rule change was made?

        There was a time when a foul meant that the foulee got only one free
        throw. Teams took advantage of this to foul incessantly late in games
        (another example of how an overly small number of awarded FTs per foul
        leads to a LARGER number of fouls and free throws), finally the NBA or BAA
        or whatever it was in those days instituted the "penalty": after too many
        team fouls, the foulee would get a "bonus" FT, a total of "one plus the
        penalty" -- some announcers still use those phrases, or used to. For
        decades now it's been in reality just "two free throws" but those two FTs
        originated as "one, plus the penalty".

        But I don't know the details of those single FTs. Were they only for
        non-shooting fouls? Did teams get to shoot them immediately, or only
        after an excessive number of team fouls had accumulated (probably the
        former, given that I think the notion of counting team fouls only started
        with the notion of the penalty free throw).

        Note that the single FT was perhaps originally an okay idea, when players
        are making only 32% of their field goals, then awarding a foulee a FT that
        he has a 75% chance of making makes him better off. But when players can
        make even just 40% of their FTs, defenses are better off hacking away,
        even if the fouled player makes a FT, now they get the ball with a 40%
        chance of getting two points -- except of course that the other team is
        likely to foul them, and on and on.

        But I don't know the details. I think the penalty free throw idea was
        invented in the early 1950s, but I don't know. A book such as Peterson's
        "From Cages to Jumpshots" probably has the details, but I don't have it
        with me.


        --MKT
      • alleyoop2
        Another good example of the league doing away with a rule that was being used perversely is the Delay of Game call on last-minute inbounds passes. They just
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 28, 2002
          Another good example of the league doing away with a rule that was
          being used perversely is the Delay of Game call on last-minute
          inbounds passes. They just changed it so in that specific instance
          it's an automatic technical foul, and now nobody does it anymore.
          Beautiful.



          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > > I was listening to Laker "colorman" Stu Lantz and he said there
          was a time when teams DID shoot freethrows on the first four fouls in
          the quarter even if the player wasn't fouled in the act of shooting.
          I checked my NBA Encyclopedia and I could find nothing on THAT rule
          change, although there was mention of other rule changes. Assuming
          Mr. Lantz isn't making things up, does anybody know what year the
          rule change was made?
          >
          > There was a time when a foul meant that the foulee got only one free
          > throw. Teams took advantage of this to foul incessantly late in
          games
          > (another example of how an overly small number of awarded FTs per
          foul
          > leads to a LARGER number of fouls and free throws), finally the NBA
          or BAA
          > or whatever it was in those days instituted the "penalty": after
          too many
          > team fouls, the foulee would get a "bonus" FT, a total of "one plus
          the
          > penalty" -- some announcers still use those phrases, or used to.
          For
          > decades now it's been in reality just "two free throws" but those
          two FTs
          > originated as "one, plus the penalty".
          >
          > But I don't know the details of those single FTs. Were they only
          for
          > non-shooting fouls? Did teams get to shoot them immediately, or
          only
          > after an excessive number of team fouls had accumulated (probably
          the
          > former, given that I think the notion of counting team fouls only
          started
          > with the notion of the penalty free throw).
          >
          > Note that the single FT was perhaps originally an okay idea, when
          players
          > are making only 32% of their field goals, then awarding a foulee a
          FT that
          > he has a 75% chance of making makes him better off. But when
          players can
          > make even just 40% of their FTs, defenses are better off hacking
          away,
          > even if the fouled player makes a FT, now they get the ball with a
          40%
          > chance of getting two points -- except of course that the other
          team is
          > likely to foul them, and on and on.
          >
          > But I don't know the details. I think the penalty free throw idea
          was
          > invented in the early 1950s, but I don't know. A book such as
          Peterson's
          > "From Cages to Jumpshots" probably has the details, but I don't
          have it
          > with me.
          >
          >
          > --MKT
        • HoopStudies
          ... Ohhh. I always thought that I d just call 2 plays as a coach. One to run the first time, the second one with just a different entry pass. No big deal,
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 28, 2002
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
            > Another good example of the league doing away with a rule that was
            > being used perversely is the Delay of Game call on last-minute
            > inbounds passes. They just changed it so in that specific instance
            > it's an automatic technical foul, and now nobody does it anymore.
            > Beautiful.

            Ohhh. I always thought that I'd just call 2 plays as a coach. One
            to run the first time, the second one with just a different entry
            pass. No big deal, but I think they could have kept that one.

            DeanO
          • Michael K. Tamada
            ... I hadn t realized that they changed the rule, I guess I need to watch more games. Yeah, that s another example. Sometimes teams couldn t do the
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 29, 2002
              On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, alleyoop2 wrote:

              > Another good example of the league doing away with a rule that was
              > being used perversely is the Delay of Game call on last-minute
              > inbounds passes. They just changed it so in that specific instance
              > it's an automatic technical foul, and now nobody does it anymore.
              > Beautiful.

              I hadn't realized that they changed the rule, I guess I need to watch more
              games. Yeah, that's another example. Sometimes teams couldn't do the
              purposefuly Delay of Game because they'd already had a delay of game
              called on them earlier, due to holding onto the ball too long or batting
              it away or whatever. An almost total non sequitur, the prior delay of
              game call affecting the penalty for the intentional-delay-of-game-on-
              end-of-game-inbounds.


              --MKT
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.