"Commish for a day" NBA rule change: Foul Consequences Overhaul

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Informed by several of the ideas and thoughts and concerns expressed in an earlier post on another board inviting posters to just spitball their inclinations... and it turns out, I was surprised to find how many posters' thoughts/ideas there revolved around the interconnections between foul shots, slowing the game down, and disqualification.

I'm different than some, in that, I'm not a fan of star-ball, and wish for a return to the days when the wider roster mattered to the success of a team, and success couldn't be reduced to being a function of how good just your best 3 players are. The nature of the game makes it different from football where the elite players can only affect one half of the snaps of a game, or baseball where the best batters only come to the plate every 9th PA and the pitchers only affect a half-inning. I think that's a good thing for the other two major sports. Like I said team ball > star ball.

So here's mine. Like some others, I propose an overhaul to how the NBA does foul consequences. In short, you'd see...

1. Fewer (much) foul shots.
2. Introduction of the penalty bench as the primary and most typical punishment.
3. And elimination of the 6 foul limit, instead going with a whole different approach--after so many fouls, the player begins to lose his freedom to go in and out of the game, such that he has no choice but to remain on the floor or exit either for the first half or for the rest of the game (like how it is in baseball).

Foul Shots
- Assessed for shooting fouls only when in the bonus (5 or more team fouls in a quarter)
- Assessed for technical fouls as currently done
- Assessed for flagrant fouls as currently done
- Never assessed for non-shooting fouls or offensive fouls

Penalty Bench
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 1 min for all non-shooting fouls
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 2 min for all shooting fouls
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 5 min for all flagrant 1 fouls
- Never assessed for offensive or technical fouls

Re-Entry Privilege Forfeiture
- Following 4th foul or return to the game following penalty bench after 4th foul, player required to remain in the game for the rest of the half; exit for any reason other than another foul will be permanent for that half

- Following 5th foul or return to the game following penalty bench after 5th foul, player required to remain in the game for rest of the game; exit for any reason other than another foul will be permanent for that game





Effects of this?

1. The game will move faster because a significant number of foul shot breaks are eliminated.

2. More players will circulate in and out of the game, and so a deeper roster is more likely to translate into success.

3. For those of us who love strategy, this adds another layer of complexity for how coaches use their rosters 1-13 on a given night.

4. The motive to attempt to get a player fouled out of a game is removed, though from a coach's perspective, it's still important to keep players from earning their 4th and 5th fouls so that the coach can maintain late game flexibility and is not forced to leave increasingly-exhausted players in the game... and yet, for well-conditioned top-tier players, it's a non-factor... so it's something that those who moan about not wanting artificial means imposed that would necessarily restrict the top tier players' playing time should be able to embrace.

[graymule]

A couple of thoughts.

1-- One "extra" foul allowed for each overtime team plays. Example: A player fouls out in 4th quarter. In overtime
quarter he may play because he now has that one "extra" foul. Without fouling here, he has 2 "extra" fouls in the
second overtime. Keeps some stars in the overtime games..

2--- When a team deliberately fouls an opponent (AKA hack-a-Shaq) the fouled player gets his two shots AND his team
retains possession of the ball. This would stop this almost 100%.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

:D

1-- One "extra" foul allowed for each overtime team plays. Example: A player fouls out in 4th quarter. In overtime
quarter he may play because he now has that one "extra" foul. Without fouling here, he has 2 "extra" fouls in the
second overtime. Keeps some stars in the overtime games..

I think you'll like this... it's not a concern in the redesign... no one fouls out.

Instead, they can lose their privilege to return to a game, but they can't be dismissed... and so if they're that valuable, and importantly if they have the physical endurance to stay in the game, the coach never has to remove them.

2--- When a team deliberately fouls an opponent (AKA hack-a-Shaq) the fouled player gets his two shots AND his team retains possession of the ball. This would stop this almost 100%.

Think you'll like this, too.

The guy who fouls always has to come out of the game for some bench time.

There are no foul shots until the bonus, and at that, only for shooting fouls. So, it's not so simple as picking out a player on the floor and fouling him... he has to be actually shooting the ball after the bonus threshold has passed (more than 4 fouls in the quarter).

Add to that... if you're the team trying to come back, there's some erosion to the availability of the 13 dressed as you amass more and more players earning their 4th fouls in the 2nd half.

[REHawksFan]

Informed by several of the ideas and thoughts and concerns expressed in an earlier post on another board inviting posters to just spitball their inclinations... and it turns out, I was surprised to find how many posters' thoughts/ideas there revolved around the interconnections between foul shots, slowing the game down, and disqualification.

I'm different than some, in that, I'm not a fan of star-ball, and wish for a return to the days when the wider roster mattered to the success of a team, and success couldn't be reduced to being a function of how good just your best 3 players are. The nature of the game makes it different from football where the elite players can only affect one half of the snaps of a game, or baseball where the best batters only come to the plate every 9th PA and the pitchers only affect a half-inning. I think that's a good thing for the other two major sports. Like I said team ball > star ball.

So here's mine. Like some others, I propose an overhaul to how the NBA does foul consequences. In short, you'd see...

1. Fewer (much) foul shots.
2. Introduction of the penalty bench as the primary and most typical punishment.
3. And elimination of the 6 foul limit, instead going with a whole different approach--after so many fouls, the player begins to lose his freedom to go in and out of the game, such that he has no choice but to remain on the floor or exit either for the first half or for the rest of the game (like how it is in baseball).

Foul Shots
- Assessed for shooting fouls only when in the bonus (5 or more team fouls in a quarter)
- Assessed for technical fouls as currently done
- Assessed for flagrant fouls as currently done
- Never assessed for non-shooting fouls or offensive fouls

Penalty Bench
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 1 min for all non-shooting fouls
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 2 min for all shooting fouls
- Offending player benched until first clock stoppage after 5 min for all flagrant 1 fouls
- Never assessed for offensive or technical fouls

Re-Entry Privilege Forfeiture
- Following 4th foul or return to the game following penalty bench after 4th foul, player required to remain in the game for the rest of the half; exit for any reason other than another foul will be permanent for that half

- Following 5th foul or return to the game following penalty bench after 5th foul, player required to remain in the game for rest of the game; exit for any reason other than another foul will be permanent for that game





Effects of this?

1. The game will move faster because a significant number of foul shot breaks are eliminated.

2. More players will circulate in and out of the game, and so a deeper roster is more likely to translate into success.

3. For those of us who love strategy, this adds another layer of complexity for how coaches use their rosters 1-13 on a given night.

4. The motive to attempt to get a player fouled out of a game is removed, though from a coach's perspective, it's still important to keep players from earning their 4th and 5th fouls so that the coach can maintain late game flexibility and is not forced to leave increasingly-exhausted players in the game... and yet, for well-conditioned top-tier players, it's a non-factor... so it's something that those who moan about not wanting artificial means imposed that would necessarily restrict the top tier players' playing time should be able to embrace.

1. Doubt the league would ever sign off on players not being allowed leave/re-enter game due to injury concerns.
2. The NBA is now and will always be about star players. Therefore, they will do nothing to diminish their importance and marketability.
3. If these rules were in place by force you'd likely never see star players get called for a foul for the reasons above.

Also, if I were NBA czar, I'd get rid of the draft as the vehicle for player entry into the league. That would end a lot of problems and make for a more fair system.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1. hehe... welcome to your doubts... seems to have worked okay in baseball for about 150 years, though.

3. Then that's its own indictment of the league already, then isn't it.

If your police aren't doing their job, that's a problem with your police. You can't make laws based on what you think the police will or won't enforce and expect to have good, reasonable laws.

[REHawksFan]

1. hehe... welcome to your doubts... seems to have worked okay in baseball for about 150 years, though.

3. Then that's its own indictment of the league already, then isn't it.

If your police aren't doing their job, that's a problem with your police. You can't make laws based on what you think the police will or won't enforce and expect to have good, reasonable laws.

Are you really suggesting a sport where players literally stand still more than they move is the same injury risk as a sport where players constantly run? If so you dont have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, are you really so naive as to think superstars dont receive special treatment? Your system would make that special treatment even more blatent.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1. hehe... welcome to your doubts... seems to have worked okay in baseball for about 150 years, though.

3. Then that's its own indictment of the league already, then isn't it.

If your police aren't doing their job, that's a problem with your police. You can't make laws based on what you think the police will or won't enforce and expect to have good, reasonable laws.

Are you really suggesting a sport where players literally stand still more than they move is the same injury risk as a sport where players constantly run? If so you dont have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, are you really so naive as to think superstars dont receive special treatment? Your system would make that special treatment even more blatent.

1. Um. No, if you read what I wrote, in fact, I did not suggest that. Didn't even go there at all.

And/but so now are you seriously making the case that the reason why baseball players can go out of a game and not come back in is because they aren't constantly in motion anyhow? Or that in the NBA, you have this constant rotation of players going in and out because of injury?

Nonsense. It's just how the rules of the two games were at the beginning of their professional league status.

3. Um. Might need to re-read what I wrote because what you wrote is non-responsive to what I wrote.

Put another way, if a parent is all that concerned about his kids are not following the rules that he's determined are best for his home, then the problem isn't with his rules. The problem is with him and his strength of conviction to enforce them.

Don't fail to make the best rules because you're currently doing a lousy job of enforcing what you have. Fix the real problem, and, make the best rules. Do both.

[REHawksFan]

1. hehe... welcome to your doubts... seems to have worked okay in baseball for about 150 years, though.

3. Then that's its own indictment of the league already, then isn't it.

If your police aren't doing their job, that's a problem with your police. You can't make laws based on what you think the police will or won't enforce and expect to have good, reasonable laws.

Are you really suggesting a sport where players literally stand still more than they move is the same injury risk as a sport where players constantly run? If so you dont have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, are you really so naive as to think superstars dont receive special treatment? Your system would make that special treatment even more blatent.

1. Um. No, if you read what I wrote, in fact, I did not suggest that. Didn't even go there at all.

And/but so now are you seriously making the case that the reason why baseball players can go out of a game and not come back in is because they aren't constantly in motion anyhow? Or that in the NBA, you have this constant rotation of players going in and out because of injury?

Nonsense. It's just how the rules of the two games were at the beginning of their professional league status.

3. Um. Might need to re-read what I wrote because what you wrote is non-responsive to what I wrote.

Put another way, if a parent is all that concerned about his kids are not following the rules that he's determined are best for his home, then the problem isn't with his rules. The problem is with him and his strength of conviction to enforce them.

Don't fail to make the best rules because you're currently doing a lousy job of enforcing what you have. Fix the real problem, and, make the best rules. Do both.

Baseball and basketball are apples and oranges. They require completely different levels of fitness. Using baseball to justify a rule change in basketball is nonsensical.

Secondly, way to state the obvious. To use your own analogy, you are saying a parent who lacks conviction to enforce less stringent rules should create stricter rules and be expected to enforce them. That's a fairly naive POV.

If the NBA doesn't force their refs to enforce the current rules on superstar players, what makes you think they would do so with more punitive consequences?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1. I call your "nonsensical," and raise you a BS.

It's called precedent. Precedent is something we often use to consider whether X is justified under a different set of conditions, and it follows the premise, "if it worked under those conditions, it makes sense that it could work under these other conditions as well."

There is precedent for deciding to have re-entry into games restricted.

Let's just understand, here's the trade-off that is proposed.

Ditch the 6-foul disqualification in favor of a whole different approach that DOESN'T compel the unwelcome exit of a key player... one where even if you foul too much, as long as you're willing to keep that player in the game, there is no added consequence to those fouls.

Granted, it sets up the best conditioned players to have advantage, but then, why shouldn't they. And, after all, the thinking goes, there should be some consequence to fouling too much.



2. You keep putting words in my mouth. A better way of saying what you just said would be to ask politely, "I think what I'm hearing you say is...."

No. You did not hear me say "create stricter rules." Those are your words. The rules themselves did not change. You get that, no? The consequences are being proposed for change. That's important because we often consider both in the home and in the greater society how we might be smarter to adjust the consequences, and that's hardly a routine that is prone to being criticized. It is smart to think about how we might better frame consequences to meet the goals we have.

Are these stricter consequences then? I'd use the word "harsher."

Once you get in the bonus, yes, absolutely. Stay out of the bonus situation as best you possibly can, so that your shooting fouls don't result in foul shots in addition to the offending player's 2 minute benching.

Before the bonus, though, no... they're actually arguably much lighter, to the point that some have argued that it's a slap on the wrist... and it is indeed a slap on the wrist to the degree that the guy coming in to the game is about as good as the guy leaving the game... the bigger problem is keeping out of the bonus in the short term, and in the long term, keeping as much flexibility as possible for late-game on-the-floor choices (ie, no one who *has* to stay on the floor in order to keep them in the game).

What you did hear me say, but seemingly aren't interested in engaging the point made, is that if the NBA has an enforcement problem, then that is its own problem that they need to deal with, and can if they want to. Objectively speaking, it's in the eye of the beholder how good a job they're doing... and importantly... always will be. But good policy is good policy and bad policy is bad policy. Your local, state and federal legislatures are going to form more bad policy than good if it is formed under the presumption of what law enforcement will or won't actually enforce.... we all as rational adults understand, if there's a problem with your local police upholding laws, then that's a problem you raise with them and expect them to correct.... you don't go to the city council or mayor and say, "look, these laws and associated consequences you have or are thinking of having, you can't do those because you just aren't being realistic about what your police force is going to be willing to enforce."

I'll say this much more to that, but it's a topic that's a bit of a detour here and better suited for its own separate thread. The NBA does NOT have the problem it had during the Jordan rules years. Not at all. I always point to a playoff game between Portland and LA Lakers when our own Steve Smith laid a hard non-shooting foul on Shaq late in a game, right in front of a ref, and obviously disinterested in sending Shaq to the line, it was blatantly ignored. That wouldn't happen today by a long shot, pun somewhat intended.

[EazyRoc]

I actually went looking for your other thread sturt because I wanted to chime in and couldn’t find it.

The 3 point line needs to be moved back a foot or two.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I actually went looking for your other thread sturt because I wanted to chime in and couldn’t find it.

The 3 point line needs to be moved back a foot or two.

This might be what you're looking for (?)....

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1831576

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Just discovered that 82games.com had an interesting write-up about bonus situations...

http://www.82games.com/bonus.htm

So here's a main takeaway for me... they've established that, as-is, teams spend about 30% of game minutes in the bonus.

That's important because a key premise of this change is that we're going to see fewer free throws... but how many, and then, what does that mean in terms of keeping the game moving along?

In any given year, the best teams shoot about 30 per game, the worst about 20 per game. That's about 40-60 foul shot attempts in a given game. Timing a few foul shot breaks in a game, and starting the clock only after the ref has the chance to report the foul to the scorer's table, the quickest break seems to run about 20 seconds for a single foul shot, and the longest is about 60 seconds for two foul shots with the additional interruption of a player substitution. More typically, I found it's 25 secs for a one-shot foul and 35 secs for a two-shot break.

Let's take the most conservative numbers here first... so, if we only have 40 foul shot attempts between the least prolific foul-shooting teams (2 x 20), all of them two-shot breaks...

that's 20 (40 breaks, 2 shots in each) x 20 seconds (35 secs minus the 15 secs coaches would have to get a new player into a game) x 70% (ie, the time a team is not normally in the bonus)...

That amounts to 4:40 minimum in what would otherwise be non-action-time sliced off the average game (!).

If we look at the other end of the range, where we have the most prolific foul-shooting teams (2 x 30), in only single-shot breaks... that's 60 (a shot break for every free throw shot) x 10 secs (25 secs minus the 15 secs coaches would have to substitute) x 70%...

That's 7:00 of non-action time sliced out of a given game.

So, objectively, I think we can assume total time of games would likely decrease 5-6 minutes on average... or in other words, we just effectively cut out 4-5 timeouts per game... but more to the point, the choppiness of games is severely impacted... and would even have some palpable effect on the end-of-game choppiness since losing teams are more likely to give up their late-game foul-fests somewhat sooner given the fact that non-shooting fouls do not result in foul shots plus the consequences that shooting fouls do not only result in foul shots but in players they ordinarily would want on the floor at the end of the game having to pay their penalty bench dues.

There's a LOT to like about this, if I do say so myself.