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 11:33 PM ^
But I'd say you have to get across half court to get the FT's. Unless you're in the bonus, then get the normal two shots, unless across half court, then the "and one".
I hate free throw contests after a hard played game, it just sucks the life and fun out of it.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:42 PM ^
Listening to the John Feinstein show much?
January 3rd, 2014 at 2:01 AM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 4:13 AM ^
But I'm sure others have thought about "what can we do at the end of close basketball games so that games more often resemble "playing basketball".
January 3rd, 2014 at 12:00 AM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 4:16 AM ^
in me, I get to feel her boobs right of the bat?
I'm good with that.
January 3rd, 2014 at 12:48 AM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 12:54 AM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 1:52 AM ^
the idea is both as constructive and implausible as any i've heard to combat the late-game rule-hacking. might put games to bed more quickly when a team in the lead has the poise to hit FT.
part of the problem is that you'd probably still foul. at a certain point, a coach will foul to preserve time even if it means 3 FT, intentional-1, intentional-2, or any other solution.
January 3rd, 2014 at 8:22 AM ^
that the team can choose to take the ball instead of FT's inside of 2 minutes. This solves the problem completely. Yes the opposing team can keep fouling, and their players will be out of the game as they rack up foul after foul. Brilliant. Let's champion this and make it a reality mgoblog!
January 3rd, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
instead of shoot free throws has been tried. It was worse. Coaches, players and fans all hated it and the rule went away before even making it a full season. The team that is leading was constantly being fouled while trying inbound the basketball (which isn't always easy). So the choice for the team with the lead was keep trying to inbound the ball over and over again until you commit a turnover, or shoot your free throws.
The larger problem is that any game that is played with an official clock determining the conclusion of the game (with the exception of hockey) suffers from these types of problems when the clock winds down to the end of the game (or up in soccer, because almost everything about soccer is stupid. At this point they have seen hockey and how much better that version of the offsides rule works. Tthey have seen clocks that stop for stoppages in play and countdown allowing everybody to know how much time is left in the game. They just willing choose to do things poorly). Moving basketball and football to possession based game lengths would put an end to this type of crap and make basketball look more like basketball at the end of games. Mercy rules could also be put in place to prevent injuries to players when the outcome of the game has already been decided. Though even if you moved basketball to the possession based game length, you would still need the OP's rule so that when the offense needed three points, they could still have the opportunity to get three points.
January 3rd, 2014 at 8:25 AM ^
I forgot to say that those of you claiming our coach doesn't do the "foul over and over to extend the game" thing are dead wrong. He has done it a ton of times, and some of them with good effect. I still don't like it one bit, though
January 3rd, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
Every coach in existence does that. What Beilein doesn't do (at least not often) is deliberately foul when we're ahead by 3.
January 3rd, 2014 at 9:09 AM ^
...only if we also allow unlimited traveling and double dribbling.
January 3rd, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
Your idea isn't a bad one. Though, I don't think teams choose to foul when up 3 and less than 10 seconds to go nearly enough to warrant a rule change (this does seem to happen more often in the NBA, however). My rule change - let the offensive team choose to either have the ball after a foul or shoot free throws once they reach the bonus.