Rule change: shoot only 1 FT each trip to the line

[Arp590]

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games. The last 3 minutes of game clock taking 20-25 min due to free throws and timeouts is the worst thing.

That makes no sense. If you could refuse fouls then why would the other team stop fouling?
Are they going to blow the whistle every time there is a foul, stop the game action, just so the other team can decline it?
Or are they going to just not blow the whistle because the other team signaled that they are going to decline all fouls?
So it would be in the other team's best interest to just hold/hack them on every play so that it makes it impossible to score since they know they won't be called for a foul.

[Seabass11]

But then if you're fouled on a layup or shot very close to the rim, you're only given one chance to get points...from further out. That doesn't seem fair to me

[Cavsfansince84]

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games. The last 3 minutes of game clock taking 20-25 min due to free throws and timeouts is the worst thing.

What's the point of shortening games?
Suspense is a good thing.

If you enjoy the last 3 min taking forever that's fine. Not everyone else has to enjoy it though.

[Cavsfansince84]

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games. The last 3 minutes of game clock taking 20-25 min due to free throws and timeouts is the worst thing.

That makes no sense. If you could refuse fouls then why would the other team stop fouling?
Are they going to blow the whistle every time there is a foul, stop the game action, just so the other team can decline it?
Or are they going to just not blow the whistle because the other team signaled that they are going to decline all fouls?
So it would be in the other team's best interest to just hold/hack them on every play so that it makes it impossible to score since they know they won't be called for a foul.

They could award a foul but the other team could keep the ball instead of having to shoot ft's.

[Arp590]

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games. The last 3 minutes of game clock taking 20-25 min due to free throws and timeouts is the worst thing.

That makes no sense. If you could refuse fouls then why would the other team stop fouling?
Are they going to blow the whistle every time there is a foul, stop the game action, just so the other team can decline it?
Or are they going to just not blow the whistle because the other team signaled that they are going to decline all fouls?
So it would be in the other team's best interest to just hold/hack them on every play so that it makes it impossible to score since they know they won't be called for a foul.

They could award a foul but the other team could keep the ball instead of having to shoot ft's.

Still that doesn't really do anything except stop the clock & then you have to reset your play.. in which they can just immediately foul you again.

[Cavsfansince84]

That makes no sense. If you could refuse fouls then why would the other team stop fouling?
Are they going to blow the whistle every time there is a foul, stop the game action, just so the other team can decline it?
Or are they going to just not blow the whistle because the other team signaled that they are going to decline all fouls?
So it would be in the other team's best interest to just hold/hack them on every play so that it makes it impossible to score since they know they won't be called for a foul.

They could award a foul but the other team could keep the ball instead of having to shoot ft's.

Still that doesn't really do anything except stop the clock & then you have to reset your play.. in which they can just immediately foul you again.

I don't think it would actually be that much of a problem in the regular season but it might become one in the playoffs. Teams could always choose to shoot the ft's as well. If you don't like the idea that's fine but I don't really have any interest in endlessly debating something that's not going to be implemented into games anyhow. There's nothing to be gained from it.

[Arp590]

They could award a foul but the other team could keep the ball instead of having to shoot ft's.

Still that doesn't really do anything except stop the clock & then you have to reset your play.. in which they can just immediately foul you again.

I don't think it would actually be that much of a problem in the regular season but it might become one in the playoffs. Teams could always choose to shoot the ft's as well. If you don't like the idea that's fine but I don't really have any interest in endlessly debating something that's not going to be implemented into games anyhow. There's nothing to be gained from it.

It's not really a debate, and it's not really whether I like it or not.. it just wouldn't work, it's a silly idea.

[Cavsfansince84]

Still that doesn't really do anything except stop the clock & then you have to reset your play.. in which they can just immediately foul you again.

I don't think it would actually be that much of a problem in the regular season but it might become one in the playoffs. Teams could always choose to shoot the ft's as well. If you don't like the idea that's fine but I don't really have any interest in endlessly debating something that's not going to be implemented into games anyhow. There's nothing to be gained from it.

It's not really a debate, and it's not really whether I like it or not.. it just wouldn't work, it's a silly idea.

Actually it is you debating the merits of the idea with me and whether the idea would work at this point is a completely subjective thing whether you agree with me or not. So w/e. Its just pointless to continue debating something which isn't going to be implemented regardless.

[Arp590]

I don't think it would actually be that much of a problem in the regular season but it might become one in the playoffs. Teams could always choose to shoot the ft's as well. If you don't like the idea that's fine but I don't really have any interest in endlessly debating something that's not going to be implemented into games anyhow. There's nothing to be gained from it.

It's not really a debate, and it's not really whether I like it or not.. it just wouldn't work, it's a silly idea.

Actually it is you debating the merits of the idea with me and whether the idea would work at this point is a completely subjective thing whether you agree with me or not. So w/e. Its just pointless to continue debating something which isn't going to be implemented regardless.

You didn't give any counter-arguments, so i'm not seeing any debate. "I don't think it would be much of a problem" is not an argument.
Regardless, you seemed pretty adamant about it being a great idea in your original post, not sure why you're campaigning for something that you don't think would ever be implemented. But you seem to be heavily backing off from your original statement, so it seems that you agree with me that it wouldn't work.

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games.

In fact that would actually extend games because the other team would be free to foul without penalty. (other than the obvious 6 foul limit)

[Cavsfansince84]

It's not really a debate, and it's not really whether I like it or not.. it just wouldn't work, it's a silly idea.

Actually it is you debating the merits of the idea with me and whether the idea would work at this point is a completely subjective thing whether you agree with me or not. So w/e. Its just pointless to continue debating something which isn't going to be implemented regardless.

You didn't give any counter-arguments, so i'm not seeing any debate. "I don't think it would be much of a problem" is not an argument.
Regardless, you seemed pretty adamant about it being a great idea in your original post, not sure why you're campaigning for something that you don't think would ever be implemented. But you seem to be heavily backing off from your original statement, so it seems that you agree with me that it wouldn't work.

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games.

In fact that would actually extend games because the other team would be free to foul without penalty. (other than the obvious 6 foul limit)

I'm not heavily backing off. As with any idea there can be pros and cons to it. You are just heavily against the idea and as such there's nothing I can do about it. I do think it would speed up games and would cut down on teams just fouling so they can shoot 3's which is a gimmicky way for teams to make come backs imo. Maybe it would work or maybe it wouldn't but its hard to know for sure without it actually being implemented. Its just an idea I had. Its not something I am married to and have some huge vested interest in. You seem to be really scared that Adam Silver is going to read my idea and put it in starting next year.