Reply With Quote
Hard to believe these ex-coaches turned Media. They're either lying now, or, they were lying then.
Jeff Van Gundy Would Like the NBA to Do Away With Players Fouling Out
By Brett Pollakoff
Jeff Van Gundy isn't a fan of players being forced to sit with foul trouble during games, and in fact, he'd like to see the league get rid of the "fouling out" rule altogether.
On Saturday, in response to a question about whether or not he thinks Ray Allen will continue to face problems with early fouls as he did in Game 1 of the NBA Finals, Van Gundy responded by detailing the reasons why he thinks the whole concept of players fouling out of games isn't a good one for the NBA.
"Let's hope not," Van Gundy said. "I've been against fouling out, the rule. I don't like the idea. If you say the NBA won't change to a "no-foul-out" rule, well, let's at least give them an extra foul. Because no one came here to watch who's in foul trouble. They'd like to see the Lakers' best, the Celtics' best, and ... I think it's one of the problems with basketball in general.
"In football they don't say three holding calls and you're out, in baseball they don't say two errors and you're out. I just think it's bizarre that we would want our best players to be sitting out. Especially because I think it would take a lot of burden off of the officials, too. Because if they make a poor call now it can really have an impact on the game, but if there were more fouls, at least that one foul wouldn't dramatically change things ... Ray Allen's two [early] fouls dramatically altered the course of that game. I'm not saying the outcome of that game, but the course of the game.
"I think the NBA should really lean more heavily on the expertise of the coaches who coach right now than they do. Right now they're looked at almost as like the enemy. You know, because they're always getting fined, it's like they're the 'enemy of the state', instead of like the guys who really know what would be right for the NBA -- the game. Coaches have no idea about the business of the NBA, but I would say the league has limited knowledge of what's good for the game.
"I think there are some tweaks we could have to make the game better. A lot better."
Hard to believe these ex-coaches turned Media. They're either lying now, or, they were lying then.
The game would be utterly boring. We would end up with a free-throw shooting contest.
A better idea would be to give each player a maximum of 3 fouls allowed per quarter. Each quarter it resets, if they reach 3 fouls they must sit out the remaining quarter.
Quit dumbing down the game. Not all players, not all teams are equal. Trying to even it all up by chasing down logic and torturing it is not the way. Players need to quit cheating, play it straight and take the result.
It's called compe ion.
If you're going to do that, then you need to make fouls worth 2 free throws and the ball. Otherwise, why not just smash the out of anyone who gets a high percentage look?
I believe the old ABA had a rule that a player could stay in the game after his 6th foul, but a technical FT (and possesion?) was awarded to the opposing team.
how does that work? technical for every succeeding personal foul?
I think so, but I'm not sure exactly. Apparently the CBA has/had a similar rule:
A player cannot foul out of the game - after a player's sixth personal foul, the opposing team receives an automatic free throw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...ll_Association
EDIT: I found the rule on the great Remember the ABA site:
When a player committed his sixth personal foul, he could stay in the game. However, subsequent fouls by that particular player resulted in two free throws plus possession of the ball for the opposing team.
http://www.remembertheaba.com/ABAGen....html#ABARules
I'm so sick of Van Gundy's incessant whining about the NBA. At first it was refreshing to hear an announcer who didn't kiss the league's ass (though he consistently kisses Bryant's), but now it's just become old. This is a guy who even when he isn't whining has a nagging tone to his voice. So, what ends up happening is the viewers get to listen to some guy sound disgusted with the league and the players effort virtually all game.
If this guy is so disgusted with everything going on in the NBA (I do think he's right about the league being too image conscious and calling technical fouls over ridiculous things because they're afraid a black guy looking angry will turn off white viewers; what is this, the 60s?), then maybe he should give back all the money he's made while working in the NBA and go leech onto some minor job in his precious NFL.
The league obviously isn't perfect and has it's share of problems and it's fine to point some out, but the constant ing has become sickening.
How about fouling out happens per half? First half, if you get three fouls, you can't play the rest of the half. In the second half, you get a clean slate but if you get four fouls, then you're done for the rest of the game, unless it goes into overtime, and you have a clean slate again and it's two fouls per overtime. Shrugs. Just an idea.
I like this idea, fans come to see the players. The football example is perfect, if you even suggested coming up with a rule to foul out players in the NFL you would get laughed at. Not sure why its necessary in a much less physical game.
Players who foul a lot would still have a big negative to their game and kill their teams. It would also cause a player embarrassment to pick up nine fouls and cause his team to give up tons of free throws in a loss. So there's still incentive to avoid fouling. Plus giving up a ton of free throws would be a losing strategy.
There would probably be more free throws but players would never, ever have to come out of the game for foul trouble which happens today in pretty much every single game.
No one is saying do away with flagrant fouls. Plus, teams would still get in the bonus.
Technically when a player gets 3 fouls in a half, the coach automatically pulls him out anyways even with no limit.
Maybe I phrased that badly; why not give a hard foul to ensure the shot isn't made any time someone gets a high percentage look? If your lockdown defender doesn't have to worry about fouling out, then he might as well just send LeBron, Kobe, Durant, etc. to the line every single time they get the step on him. The games would be so boring.
The only reason I don't like that idea is bc it takes the decision out of the coaches hands and potentially emphasizes the calls even more.
If a player must sit bc of the fouls, that could swing a game big time.
If it would work or not, I guess comes down to the mathematics of it. Which is the higher percentage play if no one fouls out: fouling constantly or playing similar to the way teams play now? I do think there probably would be more fouls. But, if you foul early in the quarter its still a bad strategy because then you would get into the bonus early. Maybe they could even reduce the number of fouls it takes to get into the bonus that way hackers penalize their teams by hacking. Plus fouling a guy on every jump shot or blowby if the guy shoots 80-85% from the line like those guys would probably be a bad strategy because the percentages might be against you. Even if a guy beats you off the dribble you should still have big men in the paint to alter his shot, plus fouling players on jumpers wouldn't work if they had a good look because I think they could still finish alot and get a ton of three point plays. It's interesting to think about. I like the idea but its not as simple as Van Gundy makes it sound.
A quarter? Three? Maybe two. Three is insane.
any game with dwight howard would last 5 hours
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
