OT: Muttley Proposes the 1-and-1-and-1

Submitted by Muttley on January 2nd, 2014 at 9:43 PM

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?

Comments

Mr. Yost

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." 

dlevs01

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. 

VectorVictor05

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:33 PM ^

Except its a terrible analogy. The proper bball analogy to the prevent in football would be running all your defenders to the three point line and beyond to prevent a three point shot and allowing a wide open layup, which is something you'd never typically do. The OPs point is that there really isn't an equivalent to fouling when up 3 (except maybe intentional walks in baseball, but that's a black hole with tons of "unnatural manipulation" I don't wanna get into)

VectorVictor05

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^

To follow up, the football analogy to fouling when up three would be like jumping offsides or committing blatant pass interference on all receivers when the offense has one play to score a TD at the end of the game down 5...with the result a forced FG attempt and no chance to score the needed TD. Point being that would be ludicrous.

BlueReign

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.

B-Nut-GoBlue

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?!

BlueReign

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.

B-Nut-GoBlue

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.

justingoblue

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.

NOLA Wolverine

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. 

MGoBender

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.

turtleboy

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^

I saw Doc Rivers come up with an interesting solution to fouling late against Detroit. Detroit fouled Boston to get a chance to close the gap, after the free throws Boston fouled Detroit right back to limit them to a maximum of 2 points also. It worked, Detroit quit fouling after 2 trys.

robmorren2

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^

I like that strategy as well. Make it into a FT shooting contest. Worst case scenario you sway 2 points. That's better than letting them shoot a 3, miss 2 FTs, and swaying 3 points. Exactly like what happened tonight. We didn't want to foul, which led to an easy 3 for Minny, then Walton misses 2 FTs. If we would have just fouled, they would have had 2 pts max (which they'd have to hit 2 separate shots to earn).

drewz05

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.

Hoek

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^

How about call a spike in football intentional grounding, I mean that us what it is. I loss of down and spot foul. In basketball if you foul intentionally then it should be 2 shots and the ball.

JamieH

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.......

DeBored

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.

AngryAlum

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 PM ^

Brilliant. I too have hated this aspect of basketball. It ruins games turning basketball games into free throw shooting contests not to mention drags out the last minute or two of the game into 15 minutes easily plus all the TV commercials. I think ANY foul in the last say minute or two should result in free throws if warranted AND the fouled team gets the ball back (unless they scored on their possession.). This would force people to play defense and abandon these unsportsmanlike shenanigans. I'm also in favor of taking away all the damn time outs that also plague the games. Teams should each get 2 time outs.

Vasav

January 3rd, 2014 at 3:38 AM ^

The end of a basketball game is usually incredibly frustrating and drawn out - rather than the back and forth you see during the rest of the game, there's a sudden stop after every possession by the trailing team for a timeout or a foul. In baseball, sure you may walk the other team's best hitter in certain situations, but I don't think I've ever seen a pitcher walk two hitters in a row intentionally. In basketball? You'll totally see teams foul and then foul again immediately to put a guy on the line and hope he misses a shot.

bluesalt

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.