OT: Muttley Proposes the 1-and-1-and-1
To Foul or Not To Foul? That shouldn't be a question.
Imagine in football: Late in the game, an offense is driving for the game-tying TD with 30 seconds left. Out trots the FG unit. Why? Because the defense used its perogative to force the offense kick a FG. It makes no sense.
I realize that the analogy isn't exact. Teams have been using the non-intentional, intentional foul since Dr. Naismith strung up the peach baskets to give themselves a chance if behind as the game winds down. But this doesn't limit the offense. Rather, it forces the offense to make a play and not sit.
Conversely, I think the non-intentional, intentional foul when up three at the end of the game is a perversion of the competition. Using the rules to limit your offensive opponent in an unnatural way.
To remedy the situation, I propose the 1-and-1-and-1: When leading by 3 with under, say, 10 seconds to go, any foul on the ball handler in three point range (or anywhere off the ball) would result in a 1-and-1-and-1 if the offense is in the bonus. Or a 2-and-1 if the offense is in the double bonus. The free throw shooter gets a third free-throw if he makes the first two.
I think this would force the defense to "play basketball" at the end of the game rather than engaging in a loop-hole/gimmick.
Crazy?
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
George likes spicy chicken
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
That just might be genius. Eliminating the possibility of a three pointer while in three point range does seem ludicrous.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
If we can start threads for goofy rule changes, you guys are going to start really hating me...
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:11 PM ^
That's ok...I was never a big fan of the Cold War anyways.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
You just didn't look hard enough. The fun's right there! Games and everything!
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^
Radical theories to regulate population and eugenics are often motivated by something a little different than improving the world...
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
What if the foul isn't intentional?
And you have to be up 3 when this is in effect? I get the point of your rule, but that's a lot to think about.
Every sport has instances where teams use the rules to their advantage or to force the other team to do something that seems "unnatural."
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
in football when the other team has the ball at midfield with time for one play left because it isn't how you would normally defend a play. Interesting idea but I don't agree.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^
gotta love the power of a good analogy.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:33 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 2:12 AM ^
I think by "very great", he meant "crappy" in a "/s" kind of way
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
crazy indeed
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
For the most part, I cant stand basketball. It is the only sport in which breaking the rules is a valid, successfull, and universally used strategy to win a game.
I make an exception for Michigan.
Point being, fouls should be automatic points with bonus shots as well.
regular foul - 2 shots
bonus foul - 1 point, and 2 shots
double bonus foul - 2 points and 2 shots
should also stop the last 30 seconds of a game from lasting longer than the previous 19:30 of the half.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:03 PM ^
Intentional Walks? Spiking the ball to "clock it"? Fouls aren't illegal. Neither are the two I listed. They normally are not good things to do, but these and more across the sporting kingdom are things used to strategize.
I mean, really, what's purer basketball than shooting free throws?!
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
But actually no, walking a batter isnt breaking the rules. I mean you can hit them in the face, or you can throw all of the off to the side.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^
Also, defensive backs in football regularly commit interference to avoid giving up a score, and occasionally, teams (like Iowa against LSU) deliberately allow their opponents to score so they can get the ball back.
There are a lot of these loopholes if you think about it.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:13 PM ^
I guess im just jaded for never seeing a game within 10 points not intentionally foul at the end of a game.
Call it strategy if you want, like sacrificing a pawn in chess to take a higher value piece, but it cheapens the sport in my eyes.
OP's idea is better anyway, Ide just like to see a change to make watching basketball more enjoyable.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:29 PM ^
I hear ya. I've never looked down on the whole thing and I guess I started off knowing that this type of stuff was invloved in basketball in the earliest of my playing days and played many upon many games and this was just a part of the game at times.
When we break it down like this it really is a weird concept and yes, it slows games down and sometimes lets a team who should have lost and was outplayed for the most part, win. It's all a part of the excitement I suppose.
January 3rd, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^
Isn't it actually against the rules to foul in the way it's generally used in end of game situations? I thought that was in the book but never applied.
Anyway, in line with a couple of posts above, if Datsyuk gets a step on me I'm seriously considering taking his feet out from under him depending on my goalie/PK situation, for another sport example. Something like letting a team score in football is a bigger perversion of the rulebook, IMO.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 3:08 AM ^
The rule is already in there. 2 shots and the ball. But the refs are gutless and never makes this call.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:56 PM ^
If you want to be guaranteed a chance to tie in the last possession, don't be down by three points.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:30 PM ^
Brilliant strategy sir.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:59 PM ^
like football. allow the team to decline the penalty (foul).
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^
Now this is an interesting notion.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
.The team fouled could choose to take the ball out of bounds.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:11 PM ^
That might be worse. There'd be tons of fouls committed as teams desperately try to get steals and/or tie the other team up.
In the end, it is what it is. Make your FTs and you're golden.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 PM ^
If you're down three with just seconds left, making two free throws puts you down one and costs you the possession, which you may never get back. Every team would rather the opportunity for a three in that situation.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^
I was talking about teams in the lead, obviously.
But in the situation you're talking about, many players are able to get off a shot attempt when the foul comes, and many coaches (Beilein included) don't like to foul for that reason.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:59 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:03 PM ^
If you want teams to play basketball the whole time just play til one team reaches a predetermined score. Obviously that's not going to happen, and we'll remain stuck with end of regulation fouling shenanigans.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:06 PM ^
Good idea!
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
How many coaches do foul? We know Beilein doesn't.
I think one of the reasons many coaches don't is that other coaches/players/officials are on to this strategy and have also adjusted. You see it most often in the NBA where the refs actually (correctly!) call continuation.
If you foul and the player goes immediately up with the ball as the foul is occuring, they should be rewarded FTs. So, fouling puts that possibility in play.
Plus, there is the chance an intentional foul is called so you cannot foul someone off the ball or just wrap someone up.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 PM ^
I don't know if I like this idea or not, but I am in favor of changing the rules so that in the last two minutes a team can choose to take free throws or the ball out of bounds off of a foul call. I'm really not a fan of extending the game and letting the team that played worse for the first 38 minutes of the game completely reverse the course of the game.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 PM ^
How'd you feel about the Kansas game last year?
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
intentional grounding.
The QB would have to throw the ball out-of-bounds over the head of his WR near the sideline instead.
January 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 AM ^
Not old enough to remember, but it's an interesting case study on sports rule-change. Players of a game can find a way to force the issue.
January 3rd, 2014 at 3:11 AM ^
You already lose the down anyway due to the incomplete pass. The QB is, what, 1 yard behind the center when he spikes the ball? So you would get a 1 yard penalty? In most cases whee you are spiking the ball, you wouldn't really care about a 1 yard penalty as long as it stopped the clock. Now, if it didn't stop the clock.......
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
I think a team should have the option of a five or ten second runoff and the ball out of bounds in the event of a foul within two minutes. Or they can take the free throws.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:31 PM ^
Is it sportsmanlike of MLB pitchers to give Miguel Cabrera intentional walks all the time? It doesn't give him a chance to hit.
January 3rd, 2014 at 3:38 AM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^
Let teams advance the ball to half-court after the time out, and make it an intentional foul to foul someone off the ball/before the inbounds so that the inbounding team gets the ball back. Between the inbounding half-court and the continuation foul, you see this strategy much less frequently in the NBA, since it's a lot easier for a player to be in a good shooting position quickly, and the defense is at greater risk of giving up three foul shots instead of two.
I do like the idea though. I agree that the current strategy isn't fun to watch and feels like poor sportsmanship.