Reply With Quote
You need RC to be hired by another team first. He’s the only guy who will bite on such deals.
The advantage thing does make sense, you just need to have a quick way to notify players that the advantage is on. On a fast break that is hard to do, a ref hand or arm signal doesn't work because the players are sprinting away from all of them. It would need to be some sort of light that turns on around the basket or support, which is ok for pro leagues and probably college but would be hard to use below that level.
A potential problem is what happens if the breaking team misses the shot. When do you stop play? Waiting until the next "natural" stoppage has a host of problems: what if the fouling player would have fouled out (if the breaking team chooses the foul) but then commits yet another foul that stops play later? Blowing the whistle right after the miss precludes the possibility of a putback, or an offensive rebound that resets the possession and might make the refs rewind the clock substantially if that team misses again. Stopping play once the fouling team regains possession breaks up the flow of the game as badly as if the refs just called the original foul in the first place.
For the take foul, what are your criteria for awarding shots and the ball? I think something as simple as "any defensive foul in the backcourt" would work, with occasional ref discretion needed to decide if the ball is loose or the breaking team actually has possession. This has the bonus of stopping hack-a-whoever before that player crosses halfcourt. On further thought, this even speeds up the end of games if the ball does not advance after a timeout: you can't foul a player in the backcourt so you have to let them burn at least 8 seconds.
You need RC to be hired by another team first. He’s the only guy who will bite on such deals.
Pathetic, How does he look his wife and children in the eye after that?
whataboutism
I would say to just assume the player has an advantage unless the refs keep blowing the whistle. Almost every foul would trigger an advantage situation, whether it's a blocking foul, a shooting foul, a loose-ball foul. The only ones that may not are offensive fouls, but even then, if the charge resulted in a turnover leading to a fast break, it could be advantageous to play on anyway. I don't think you need a light. , in Rugby, the ref just says "advantage" and then stops the play if the team doesn't make progress.
You mean like if a team is on the break, gets fouled, then misses? If that is a bang-bang as it should be, then it should be easy to call the foul after the missed shot. As you mention later, if you curtail take fouls away from the basket, then you're going to get a lot fewer cases where a play can be fouled before they get to scoring position. Independent of those of those situations, I'd say you stop it whenever the team stops their momentum toward the basket.A potential problem is what happens if the breaking team misses the shot.
As I mentioned before, they can blow the whistle whenever they want. What would change is what the whistle means. I think you could stop the clock every time or keep it running every time, except inside a minute or two minutes or whatever it is now. The latter would continue to speed up the game.Blowing the whistle right after the miss precludes the possibility of a putback, or an offensive rebound that resets the possession and might make the refs rewind the clock substantially if that team misses again.
It likely would be true that an individual foul would still slow the game down as much as it does now. But there would be fewer of them, because a) the players would score more and b) players would foul less because there's less upside to doing so. There are a lot of fouls, particularly on the break, where there isn't much of a chance for them to get off a shot afterwards, often because the foul was part of a block attempt. The shots that go in would be and-1s just as they are now and the ones that miss would be FTs as they are now. I don't think waiting for tip-in for the shots that neither go in the basket or out of bounds would slow down the game at all. Oftentimes now a put-back happens before the refs react to the foul anyway.Stopping play once the fouling team regains possession breaks up the flow of the game as badly as if the refs just called the original foul in the first place.
I like the idea of that rule, but not its execution. Call EVERY foul in the back court like a clear-path foul removes full-court pressure, or at least nerfs it by encouraging players to try to draw contact back there. It seems like removing that rule for inbound possessions would work better. You don't have the same type of take fouls on OOB possessions in the first place.For the take foul, what are your criteria for awarding shots and the ball? I think something as simple as "any defensive foul in the backcourt" would work, with occasional ref discretion needed to decide if the ball is loose or the breaking team actually has possession. This has the bonus of stopping hack-a-whoever before that player crosses halfcourt.
If there's any appeal to removing take-fouls, it's because you don't want to break up the flow of the game needlessly. I know that it's a good thing to stop the ends of close games from taking QUITE as long as they used to, but I doubt anyone wants to completely remove the drama from them.On further thought, this even speeds up the end of games if the ball does not advance after a timeout: you can't foul a player in the backcourt so you have to let them burn at least 8 seconds.
Then you must have passed out by 1:00 RT!Is it a sin to play the LMA "You know" drinking game at noon? Because that's what I'm doing with a nice Chianti.
Then you must have passed out by 1:00 RT!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
