| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/14/15 12:44 pm ::: The removal of the 1-and-1 |
Reply  |
|
When the rule changes were first mentioned here, I posted my dislike of a couple of them, including the new FT scenario.
I think the change hinders comebacks, and obviously removes the pressure of making the front-end of a 1-and-1 FT situation in crunch time.
Seems like it will make games less competitive.
There will be less chances for the losing team to trade 0s or 1s from the line for 3s at their end.
I just don't see the need for, or point of, the change.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 2:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
To me, foul shooting is to basketball what "school figures" used to be to figure skating, a complete bore. And since teams started "huddling" prior to every freethrow, it has become a time waster.
I'm in favor of limiting the use of fouls to make a comeback. Fouling is at it's essence a rules violation. Intentional fouling is an intentional breaking of the rules. To turn this into a method of winning a game is a bastardization of the spirit of sport. I'm all in favor of taking away any incentive to foul.
In another thread someone complained about the new rule advancing the ball to the front court in end-of game-situations, saying it favored the trailing team. The new foul rules work in favor of the team in the lead in end-of-game situations. I'd call that a wash.
I would also speculate that the NCAA was prodded by the TV networks to do something to shorten the games. Endless intentional fouls can turn the last 4 minutes of a game into a half hour of endless trips to the line and screw up TV schedules. I'm sick of watching coaches continue to intentionally hack with 30 seconds left and a 10 point deficit.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 6:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| And yet without consequences for fouling, teams would just ..... What would you suggest?
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 7:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
To me, foul shooting is to basketball what "school figures" used to be to figure skating, a complete bore. And since teams started "huddling" prior to every freethrow, it has become a time waster.
I'm in favor of limiting the use of fouls to make a comeback. Fouling is at it's essence a rules violation. Intentional fouling is an intentional breaking of the rules. To turn this into a method of winning a game is a bastardization of the spirit of sport. I'm all in favor of taking away any incentive to foul.
In another thread someone complained about the new rule advancing the ball to the front court in end-of game-situations, saying it favored the trailing team. The new foul rules work in favor of the team in the lead in end-of-game situations. I'd call that a wash.
I would also speculate that the NCAA was prodded by the TV networks to do something to shorten the games. Endless intentional fouls can turn the last 4 minutes of a game into a half hour of endless trips to the line and screw up TV schedules. I'm sick of watching coaches continue to intentionally hack with 30 seconds left and a 10 point deficit. |
How should the team w/ the lead and less than 4 team fouls in the 4th qtr. be penalized when they intentionally foul, as the clock winds down, in order to disrupt the trailing team's offense?
Are you also bothered by a QB or punter running out of the endzone in order to draw a safety penalty?
Or a QB throwing the ball away?
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 8:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm with Linc on intentionally fouling. Always felt something was intrinsically wrong when you can benefit by breaking a rule of the game.
I can't answer for Linc on CTh's question on football but I think it's apples and oranges. Under most circumstances today throwing the ball away is legal and in the safety situation mentioned the "aggrieved" team automatically gets the points.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| How should the team w/ the lead and less than 4 team fouls in the 4th qtr. be penalized when they intentionally foul, as the clock winds down, in order to disrupt the trailing team's offense? |
They are penalized just like any other team. Ball out of bounds to the offense and 2 free throws after the 5th. And there is already a rule that covers intentional fouls. Refs just don't call it.
| Quote: |
| Are you also bothered by a QB or punter running out of the endzone in order to draw a safety penalty? Or a QB throwing the ball away? |
I'm not bothered at all by rules violations. And in any case I see no rules violation in any of the above examples. A qb or a punter running out of bounds isn't a rules violation, it's just a strategic play. Like sacrificing a pawn in chess.
If intentionally breaking a rule can be used to gain an advantage then the penalty for committing it isn't strong enough. I think awarding 2 ft's after 5 in a quarter is a disincentive to try and come back by breaking the rules. I'd suggest the trailing team practice more and not trail as much or as often.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/15 9:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| And yet without consequences for fouling, teams would just ..... What would you suggest? |
My suggestion is radical. After say, 5 fouls in a quarter, I would penalize the team on offense with loss of possession for a foul and if the defensive team committed a foul over the limit I would award a point to the offensive team plus possession, like they do for an intentional foul. There would be no foul shots at all. With much shorter stoppages in play games would be over in an hour and a half or less.
|
|
pasteurize
Joined: 07 Oct 2008
Posts: 623
Location: NY
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 8:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| My suggestion is radical. After say, 5 fouls in a quarter, I would penalize the team on offense with loss of possession for a foul and if the defensive team committed a foul over the limit I would award a point to the offensive team plus possession, like they do for an intentional foul. There would be no foul shots at all. With much shorter stoppages in play games would be over in an hour and a half or less. |
Would you actually view this as a positive? Without as much down time, the players would get winded more easily, reducing the quality of their performances and the overall product. And I understand the duration of actual game play would remain the same, but the fact that the entire event would be shorter could potentially make fans feel that their outing is not quite as worth the money they're spending. Being entertained for 2 hours (with decent entertainment during stoppages in game play) sounds better than being entertained for 1.5 hours or less.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 12:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't equate strategic fouling at the end of a game with mindless fouling in the final seconds when there IS no chance of winning, nor do I consider that strategy to be "a bastardization of the spirit of sport.".
Is there a definition of "intentional" foul in the rule book?
Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game?
I support a banning of the pre-FT huddle.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game?
|
It would seem that it necessarily does the opposite.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 4:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game?
|
It would seem that it necessarily does the opposite. |
It speeds up the game if it stops coaches from trying to come back by fouling. There's a lot less incentive to foul if you know the opponent gets 2 shots.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 4:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="cthskzfn"]
| Quote: |
| I don't equate strategic fouling at the end of a game with mindless fouling in the final seconds when there IS no chance of winning, nor do I consider that strategy to be "a bastardization of the spirit of sport.". |
I guess it's because I play golf where if you break a rule there is a punishment. There isn't a single way in which breaking a rule of golf can be to your advantage. And it's the only sport I am aware of where pros actually call penalties on themselves. When was the last time a BB player or coach did that?
| Quote: |
| Is there a definition of "intentional" foul in the rule book? |
Not sure but I think so.
| Quote: |
| Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game? |
It does if awarding 2 shots acts as a disincentive to coaches calling for intentional fouls.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 4:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game?
|
It would seem that it necessarily does the opposite. |
It speeds up the game if it stops coaches from trying to come back by fouling. There's a lot less incentive to foul if you know the opponent gets 2 shots. |
But, over the course of a season, that doesn't actually happen in many games. I bet the overall change is a net increase in game time.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 5:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pasteurize wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| My suggestion is radical. After say, 5 fouls in a quarter, I would penalize the team on offense with loss of possession for a foul and if the defensive team committed a foul over the limit I would award a point to the offensive team plus possession, like they do for an intentional foul. There would be no foul shots at all. With much shorter stoppages in play games would be over in an hour and a half or less. |
Would you actually view this as a positive? Without as much down time, the players would get winded more easily, reducing the quality of their performances and the overall product. And I understand the duration of actual game play would remain the same, but the fact that the entire event would be shorter could potentially make fans feel that their outing is not quite as worth the money they're spending. Being entertained for 2 hours (with decent entertainment during stoppages in game play) sounds better than being entertained for 1.5 hours or less. |
That's a good point. But then most wcbb games are attended by about 500, who pay little if anything. And given the attention span of most college students, it may be that they would go watch a game that took up less time.
Being from the gaming business, the problem with horse racing is that there is too much time between races. people want action. That's why slot machines and table games are so popular.
And if physical condition becomes more of a factor in wcbb it's all for the good. Right now size dominates. If small but better conditioned teams have a better chance then it helps to level the playing field.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/15 9:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Does awarding 2FTs, instead of 1-1, necessarily speed up the game?
|
It would seem that it necessarily does the opposite. |
It speeds up the game if it stops coaches from trying to come back by fouling. There's a lot less incentive to foul if you know the opponent gets 2 shots. |
But, over the course of a season, that doesn't actually happen in many games. I bet the overall change is a net increase in game time. |
Probably true.
Of course, it will not stop coaches from using that strategy at all. The only likely effect it will have is an increase in the number of failed comebacks and an increase in FT% in that scenario.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 1:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
To me, foul shooting is to basketball what "school figures" used to be to figure skating, a complete bore. And since teams started "huddling" prior to every freethrow, it has become a time waster.
I'm in favor of limiting the use of fouls to make a comeback. Fouling is at it's essence a rules violation. Intentional fouling is an intentional breaking of the rules. To turn this into a method of winning a game is a bastardization of the spirit of sport. I'm all in favor of taking away any incentive to foul.
In another thread someone complained about the new rule advancing the ball to the front court in end-of game-situations, saying it favored the trailing team. The new foul rules work in favor of the team in the lead in end-of-game situations. I'd call that a wash.
I would also speculate that the NCAA was prodded by the TV networks to do something to shorten the games. Endless intentional fouls can turn the last 4 minutes of a game into a half hour of endless trips to the line and screw up TV schedules. I'm sick of watching coaches continue to intentionally hack with 30 seconds left and a 10 point deficit. |
How should the team w/ the lead and less than 4 team fouls in the 4th qtr. be penalized when they intentionally foul, as the clock winds down, in order to disrupt the trailing team's offense?
Are you also bothered by a QB or punter running out of the endzone in order to draw a safety penalty?
Or a QB throwing the ball away? |
Another one is intentionally interfering with a pass in the endzone. If the WR catches the ball, it's a TD. If it's a pass interference call, then at worst, it's a new 1st down and half the distance to the goal line (assuming the line of scrimmage was close. Otherwise, it's 15 yards). In that case, of course you interfere with the pass.
I've seen games were at least twice in a row there was an interference call in the endzone.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 1:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
I would also speculate that the NCAA was prodded by the TV networks to do something to shorten the games. Endless intentional fouls can turn the last 4 minutes of a game into a half hour of endless trips to the line and screw up TV schedules. I'm sick of watching coaches continue to intentionally hack with 30 seconds left and a 10 point deficit. |
So shooting 2 FTs and missing the first one takes less time than missing the first part of a 1 and 1 and not getting a 2nd shot?
FT shooting is a very fundamental part of the game (It's called a "Free" throw for a reason).
You suggest that forcing 2 FTs would force coaches to not want to foul. I say "bull." If the player being fouled is a bad FT shooter, they'll foul them anyway.
The funny thing is that I think your opinion likely comes from that triple OT ND-UConn game from a few years ago, when UConn missed the front end of 1 and 1s 3 times. However, I'd bet that there were times when ND missed some front ends earlier in games when it might not have been as memorable, but might have actually mattered almost as much.
Basically, it comes down to this: be able to hit your FTs.
I do agree with you, though on teams fouling when down by a lot, but that doesn't discount the value in teams doing so when they are down in a close game. I think your opinion is colored a lot by the fact that your team has been top dog for quite a while (and usually wins by large margins). If your team had had more close games (especially close losses) and needed to come back from close deficits, I think your opinion would very likely be very different.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 2:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| CBiebel wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
I would also speculate that the NCAA was prodded by the TV networks to do something to shorten the games. Endless intentional fouls can turn the last 4 minutes of a game into a half hour of endless trips to the line and screw up TV schedules. I'm sick of watching coaches continue to intentionally hack with 30 seconds left and a 10 point deficit. |
| Quote: |
| So shooting 2 FTs and missing the first one takes less time than missing the first part of a 1 and 1 and not getting a 2nd shot? |
Yes if you believe that it would lead to less fouling.
| Quote: |
| FT shooting is a very fundamental part of the game (It's called a "Free" throw for a reason). |
Yes, and school figures were an integral part of ice skating.
| Quote: |
| You suggest that forcing 2 FTs would force coaches to not want to foul. I say "bull." If the player being fouled is a bad FT shooter, they'll foul them anyway. |
So keeping the one and one would be no different than getting rid of it? If a player is a 50% ft shooter, in 4 one and one situations they hit 2 first shots and one second shot for 3 points. Under a 2 shot format they score 4 points.
| Quote: |
| The funny thing is that I think your opinion likely comes from that triple OT ND-UConn game from a few years ago, when UConn missed the front end of 1 and 1s 3 times. However, I'd bet that there were times when ND missed some front ends earlier in games when it might not have been as memorable, but might have actually mattered almost as much. |
LOL I think it's cute that an Irish fan thinks that it's all about them. If anyone would benefit from more ft's it would be the Irish. Doesn't MM hold a flop and flip clinic every year to teach how not only to fake charges but also how to jump into a defender and throw the ball vertically at the same time?
Basically, it comes down to this: be able to hit your FTs.
I do agree with you, though on teams fouling when down by a lot, but that doesn't discount the value in teams doing so when they are down in a close game. I think your opinion is colored a lot by the fact that your team has been top dog for quite a while (and usually wins by large margins). If your team had had more close games (especially close losses) and needed to come back from close deficits, I think your opinion would very likely be very different. |
I wish it was my team but I doubt they would win nearly as many games. 
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 2:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Another one is intentionally interfering with a pass in the endzone. If the WR catches the ball, it's a TD. If it's a pass interference call, then at worst, it's a new 1st down and half the distance to the goal line (assuming the line of scrimmage was close. Otherwise, it's 15 yards). In that case, of course you interfere with the pass.
I've seen games were at least twice in a row there was an interference call in the endzone. |
I agree. Of course there is no certainty that without the pass interference the ball would have been caught for a touchdown.
If I was king of football I would change the "half the distance to the goal" rule to create a "penalty bank" where the yardage would be assessed at a later point in a game. Besides the examples you gave it also incentivised offensive teams to take more chances with offensive pass interference, etc. when they are backed up to their own goal because the penalty is a couple of yards or less.
I have an issue with most team sports because they almost all involve trying to deceive the officials. In other words, cheating. And it's taught and in some cases praised. In baseball, catchers almost all try to "pull" balls into the strike zone. I wish there was a rule where the second base umpire could call an automatic ball on any pitch where the catcher did that. I don't remember that being done much when I was younger but it's almost universal now. And it's cheating.
The general attitude today is that cheating is fine. The only thing that is wrong is getting caught at it.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 8:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
I have an issue with most team sports because they almost all involve trying to deceive the officials. In other words, cheating. And it's taught and in some cases praised. In baseball, catchers almost all try to "pull" balls into the strike zone. I wish there was a rule where the second base umpire could call an automatic ball on any pitch where the catcher did that. I don't remember that being done much when I was younger but it's almost universal now. And it's cheating.
The general attitude today is that cheating is fine. The only thing that is wrong is getting caught at it. |
Baseball has a long history of winking at cheating (and, yes, celebrating it in some cases), but I don't really think framing a pitch qualifies as cheating. The umpire is supposed to call a pitch based on where the ball is as it crosses the plate, and the catcher's glove is a good foot behind the plate most of the time.
And, yes, teams do it in all sports. There's diving in soccer, not to mention the standard dawdling to put the ball back in play when you've got the lead late in a game. My personal favorite example, though, is the time, back in the days when the NBA banned zone defenses, that Larry Bird asked one of his opponents before a game "How are you hiding your zone tonight?" (meaning, of course, that every NBA team was playing zone even though the rules said you couldn't).
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 8:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| The general attitude today is that cheating is fine. The only thing that is wrong is getting caught at it. |
When was that ever not the general attitude in sports?
Lance Armstrong? Gaylord Perry? Park He Sun? Dora Ratjen? Fred Lorz? Bobby Thompson? Donald Crowhurst? Rosie Ruiz? The examples go back as far as sports history
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 11:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| What's the phrase in NASCAR? "If you aren't cheating, you aren't winning?"
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/16/15 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| Quote: |
Another one is intentionally interfering with a pass in the endzone. If the WR catches the ball, it's a TD. If it's a pass interference call, then at worst, it's a new 1st down and half the distance to the goal line (assuming the line of scrimmage was close. Otherwise, it's 15 yards). In that case, of course you interfere with the pass.
I've seen games were at least twice in a row there was an interference call in the endzone. |
I agree. Of course there is no certainty that without the pass interference the ball would have been caught for a touchdown.
If I was king of football I would change the "half the distance to the goal" rule to create a "penalty bank" where the yardage would be assessed at a later point in a game. Besides the examples you gave it also incentivised offensive teams to take more chances with offensive pass interference, etc. when they are backed up to their own goal because the penalty is a couple of yards or less.
I have an issue with most team sports because they almost all involve trying to deceive the officials. In other words, cheating. And it's taught and in some cases praised. In baseball, catchers almost all try to "pull" balls into the strike zone. I wish there was a rule where the second base umpire could call an automatic ball on any pitch where the catcher did that. I don't remember that being done much when I was younger but it's almost universal now. And it's cheating.
The general attitude today is that cheating is fine. The only thing that is wrong is getting caught at it. |
I'm gonna guess not too many fans think of end-of-game fouling as cheating.
After all, it doesn't involve deceiving the officials. Au contraire! In fact, perhaps the fouler should be credited for calling attention to their misdeed--maybe a gold star for sportsmanship. 
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
|
|
