should the NBA get rid of 6 foul limit?

[dirt_dobber]

should the NBA get rid of 6 foul limit?
anwar32 posted this over at Dallasbasketball.com - so credit him for finding this.

interesting article. I think this would give guys like Bowen or Artest a license to kill but this might work depending on the repercussions
================================================== ===========
Article from Sports Illustrated's Jack McCallum

Chauncey Billups (right), shown here with Danny Crawford, has been among the big-name players saddled with foul trouble during the playoffs.

The most dreaded words in the NBA -- besides "Uh, oh, Stephen Jackson's at a strip club" -- are: "He's in foul trouble, and we gotta get him outta there."

As exquisite as Monday night's San Antonio-Phoenix game was, it could have been even better if not for the minutes that Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire (both of whom finished with five personals) had to spend on the bench because of foul trouble. And it's happened before to those two prime-time players. Plus, in the past week I've either been at or been watching games in which Detroit's Chauncey Billups and practically the entire Utah Jazz team have been in foul trouble. Jazz point guard Deron Williams was sitting on the bench next to Jerry Sloan with two personals before most of the Game 3 fans at Oracle Arena in Oakland had spread the mustard on their pregame hot dogs.

This is not to suggest that this season's playoff teams are encountering foul trouble among their top players at any greater rate than in past years. It's always been an issue. But this is the first year that it's driven me nuts -- have you seen the Pistons play without Billups? -- and led me to ponder this question:

On what stone tablet is it written that players have to foul out?

Basketball is one of the few sports that expels its players on a nightly basis. You can go offsides all day or commit six pass-interference penalties and you're still legal in football (though you'll probably be benched by the coach). You have to throw a couple pitches at a guy's head or a haymaker at an umpire to get ejected in the majors. Nothing less than a charge of second-degree homicide will get you tossed from an NHL game.

So why should a player have to go to the bench for, say, some charging call that's probably a block? (By the way, in my world, 90 percent of block-charge calls would be called blocks.)

The NBA instituted the six-foul limit in 1947. That's 60 years ago if you're counting at home. The Providence Steamrollers were in the league. Neither George Mikan nor Bob Cousy was playing then. Since that year, there have been countless alterations of the rule book, including a widening of the lane (twice); adding a three-point line, the 24-second clock, 20-second timeouts and a third referee; eliminating the center jump in the second, third and fourth periods; and legalizing zone defenses, among many others.

So what's so magical about six fouls? Sure, it's part of the mythology of the sport. Superstars like Wilt Chamberlain and Moses Malone were legendary for avoiding the six-foul limit, avoiding fouls altogether, as a matter of fact. You know how? They either stopped playing defense or were protected by referees who were -- still are -- reluctant to call a sixth foul on superstars. I don't blame the refs. I wouldn't want to send Duncan to the bench and watch the Spurs play down the stretch without him.

So why even raise that possibility? Why make a team take a superstar out in those all-important minutes right before halftime, which is frequently when a prime player collects his third foul?

Generally, the pattern goes like this. The referees, with league support, want to keep the game from being too physical. So they call one early foul that's legit. Then they make a ticky-tack call or a call that could go either way. Then they make a bad call. There are eight minutes left in the first half and an important player has three personal fouls, two of which, quite possibly, shouldn't have been called. This isn't a comment on the refereeing -- it's about the draconian stipulation that allows a player, in an extremely physical game, to commit only one foul every eight minutes.

What could be done? Lots of things. Raise the foul limit to eight. Abolish the limit altogether. Give the opposing team an extra possession on a player's sixth foul but let the player stay in. The idea that players would begin fouling indiscriminately is ridiculous, as the opposition still would shoot free throws.

Such a rule change would only marginally affect statistics -- foul-prone notables such as Stoudemire, Miami's Shaquille O'Neal and Washington's Gilbert Arenas might get about two more minutes per game -- and would have no effect on the qualify of the game. In fact, it would only enhance it by keeping the best players on the floor.

[jthig32]

The idea of getting rid of the foul limit altogether is idiotic. Completely idiotic.

The game would become a free throw shooting conctest between the big guys.

Seriously, why would you EVER allow a layup if there was no foul limit.

It's idiotic.

[MavsX]

lots of good points. thanks for the post.

the flip side is that people MIGHT start fouling all the time because they know they wont get tossed. Or there is nothing to be afraid of, people might not care being over aggressive on defense, or...

[Dtownsfinest]

Agree with Jthig. It would be idiotic. Why not just get rid of fouls in general? There would be no consequence for getting in foul trouble. Players have to learn to known their boundaries. Amare is a guy I don't feel sorry for because he commits some of the most stupid fouls. Now if the NBA wants to fix the problem they should go to their officiating crew. Let some touch fouls go. Quit calling charges for flops and etc.

[MavsX]

Fellas?, would you be in favor of instant reply on fouls? I think i might explore those possibilities. It seems like all the calls that go against the mavs would be fixed. and the calls for the mavs wouldn't really be a big deal.

Especially in light of some of these recent dirty players scandal.

What do you all think?

[nashtymavsfan13]

This is a stupid idea, I fully agree with Thiggy.

[Dirkgreatness]

Stupid idea, just leave it how it is.

[robo98564]

Originally Posted by Dirkgreatness

Stupid idea, just leave it how it is.

your signature is distracting

[Flacolaco]

That is incredibly stupid.

Why don't we give the coaches a couple of red challenge flags too.....

[MavsX]

damnit, answer my question you rat

[EricaLubarsky]

I still think that there should be a 4 point shot and that instead of freethrows, players should be given a chance to run down the court and jump off of one of three trampolines placed 10 feet from the basket-- a successful dunk would be worth 3 points.

[Dtownsfinest]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fellas?, would you be in favor of instant reply on fouls? I think i might explore those possibilities. It seems like all the calls that go against the mavs would be fixed. and the calls for the mavs wouldn't really be a big deal.

The games would be 10 hours long lol.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I still think that there should be a 4 point shot and that instead of freethrows, players should be given a chance to run down the court and jump off of one of three trampolines placed 10 feet from the basket-- a successful dunk would be worth 3 points.

And they have to wear capes too.

[come_on_now]

Originally Posted by MavsX

Fellas?, would you be in favor of instant reply on fouls? I think i might explore those possibilities. It seems like all the calls that go against the mavs would be fixed. and the calls for the mavs wouldn't really be a big deal.

Especially in light of some of these recent dirty players scandal.

What do you all think?

I'm all for challenges. In all sports officiating should be comitted to getting it right. Officials don't see a lot of what happens as it is and then things happen so fast they just kind of blow the whistle on somebody.

If they let Devin Harris get away with staying in front of Baron Davis the way they let Deron Williams it would have been a different series. They let one guy play and whistle the other guy for any contact of any kind. Maybe challenges would right it.

But this is the NBA. They would find a way to screw that up too.

[dude1394]

I actually would like to see some instant replay on some fouls. Maybe even a challenge would be okay. Say a key foul on a play or two. And if you challenge and lose, well you lose a to(a full).

Refs need accountability and the NBA needs to quit pretending that bad calls don't exist.

[V2M]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I still think that there should be a 4 point shot...

That's the only way one could stop Toine from taking the 3pt shots...

[V2M]

Originally Posted by MavsX

Fellas?, would you be in favor of instant reply on fouls? I think i might explore those possibilities. It seems like all the calls that go against the mavs would be fixed. and the calls for the mavs wouldn't really be a big deal.

Especially in light of some of these recent dirty players scandal.

What do you all think?

I like the idea. Every coach should get 3 flags and if they're wrong, they get charged for a timeout... just as in the NFL. It may marginally increase the time... but the credibility it brings to the game is well worth the gamble!

[vjz]

Yup, get rid of the 6 foul limit and rename the NBA to WWF.

[Flacolaco]

I think they should stop keeping score, and give each player a trophy at the end of the season.

And granola bars and juice boxes after every game.

[mary]

What could be done? Lots of things. Raise the foul limit to eight. Abolish the limit altogether. Give the opposing team an extra possession on a player's sixth foul but let the player stay in. The idea that players would begin fouling indiscriminately is ridiculous, as the opposition still would shoot free throws.

Such a rule change would only marginally affect statistics -- foul-prone notables such as Stoudemire, Miami's Shaquille O'Neal and Washington's Gilbert Arenas might get about two more minutes per game -- and would have no effect on the qualify of the game. In fact, it would only enhance it by keeping the best players on the floor.

This is inexcusable from a SI writer. What makes him think this wouldn't turn the game into a FT shooting contest in the fourth quarter? If you're playing someone that doesn't shoot FT's as well as your team does, then why not?

Its funny that he mentions it would keep Shaq in the game longer. If I'm a coach, and these are the rules, I'm probably not going to keep my 50% FT shooter on the floor in the fourth quarter. He already gets benched sometimes for this very reason.

And Tim Duncan? He might as well bring a magazine to read at the end of games.

This article is a joke.

[MavsX]

well thanks fellas for your answer...

i"m not saying after every play, but maybe have a few guys sitting on the sides, and if they see something funky, they tell the official, and he runs over and over rules what is going on.

or maybe having a few flags per half is a good idea too...just something, so that every series people can't say...'well if that call was called the right way......then....'

or the refs are biased.. somethings gotta change!

down with stern!

[MavsX]

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/05/...es-in-the-nba/

[MavsX]

First, let me go on the record as saying that in the event that a vote comes up to change the rules about suspensions for players leaving the bench, I will vote against changing it.

Why ? Because its incredibly simple to educate players about the rule. Its a rule they fully understand and they understand the consequences of violating the rule. That makes the NBA stronger because it removes uncertainty. Can it result in a game(s) being impacted , yes. However, that impact results from an action a player knew violated the rules and was a mistake. There is no uncertainty about it. All they had to do was not leave the bench.

I actually think that more rules need to be iron clad like the "don't leave the bench rule". Whenever we can remove discretion in enforcement from the NBA the game is better for it.

Fans will hate the Suns not having Amare and Boris, but they all know the rule and recognize that the players knew it and fully understood it. What really gets fans, and me upset is when they can't understand how and why a rule is enforced.

When Jason Terry was suspended for throwing a punch last year, our only argument was whether or not he actually threw a punch. If he did, all involved, including Jason knew and understood what the punishment would be and why.

When Udonis Haslem got suspended a game for throwing a mouthpiece while lying on the ground, I didn't quite get that one. Fined for being mad at an official, that I understand all too well. The suspension I didn't.

When guys throw an elbow to the head or a knee to the groin or have a habit of stepping under a player as he lands, its far too difficult for officials and the league to gauge intent. Its pretty much impossibIe. I think we need to take a no leeway position and make both a flagrant 2 foul. Make it a no questions asked rule. Watch how quickly teams re educate players on how to close out on shooters and how quickly player behavior changes. Not by all, but those who can't probably are repeat offenders and deserve the penalty. A guy missing the rest of a game is a whole lot better than injuring a player and impacting his career.

It won't completely eliminate the need for the NBA to pass judgment on player intent and dish out punishment, but it will reduce the number of times they have to do it.


To make the job of enforcing all of this a little easier, I would like to propose something publicly that I have proposed privately but was shot down.

Allow officials, at their discretion, to use instant replay to review unsportsmanlike conduct or any action that could lead to a flagrant 2 foul.

This would be an important change not only to help get the play right, but also because it lets the punitive action for a bad act take place in the game it impacts. It would also make fans feel that the officials took the appropriate action based on the best information available. It can be incredibly frustrating to everyone at the game when a replay contradicts the best efforts of an official on a matter as serious as a Flagrant Foul.


Its not a cure, but it increases the chances of penalties being relative to the game in which the problem occurred. Plus, although it wouldn't eliminate the need for the league to take action on players, it would probably reduce the number of times they would be asked to take action over a players on court behavior.