Intentional Fouls

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

1 hour ago, coonhounds said:

Fouling to stop the clock is part of the game. I like watching players have to make clutch free throws or rebound a crucial missed attempt. It is exciting and doing away with it would be detrimental imo. The only time i am against it is when it is the game before iu and it is running over into our game. Maybe they just change it to that

Sent from my SM-G920V using BtownBanners mobile app
 

Agree, it seems like it would push "winning time" back to 5 minutes before the game ends.  Teams would strategize to start fouling then to get back in the game.  If people grew bored of that it would go to 10 minutes.... until the first basket of the game determined the winner.  We wouldn't have to worry about games running over then!

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

Why would it push "winning" time back? If fouls were called like the OP suggested then they would be detrimental all game.

 

Close games down the stretch would remain close games down the stretch.

 

What activities that you attempt to avoid all game, can a football team start doing, in order to win a game they are getting whipped in?

 

[Str8Hoosiers 2,965]

16 hours ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

Why would it push "winning" time back? If fouls were called like the OP suggested then they would be detrimental all game.

Close games down the stretch would remain close games down the stretch.

What activities that you attempt to avoid all game, can a football team start doing, in order to win a game they are getting whipped in?

 

Spike the ball.... Go for it on 4th down....

I am not for calling the fouls at the end of the game intentional or changing the current rules, but every sport has things that change when it gets close to the end... both in rules and in actions... From coaching decisions, to player actions.... the team winning does things a little different and the team losing does things a little different.

In basketball the winning team has to hit the freebies etc.

In Football the winning team may kneel on the ball... or maybe fall down on purpose before scoring a would be touchdown... which is definitely something they would avoid earlier in the game.

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

18 hours ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

Why would it push "winning" time back? If fouls were called like the OP suggested then they would be detrimental all game.

 

Close games down the stretch would remain close games down the stretch.

 

What activities that you attempt to avoid all game, can a football team start doing, in order to win a game they are getting whipped in?

 

Instead of waiting for 2 minutes or 5 minutes left in the game as the OP inferred they would move it up.  If you're down and need to get back into the game before the intentional foul period began they would "intentionally foul" before that period started.  This pushing back (or up) "winning time."

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

6 hours ago, HoosierAloha said:

Instead of waiting for 2 minutes or 5 minutes left in the game as the OP inferred they would move it up.  If you're down and need to get back into the game before the intentional foul period began they would "intentionally foul" before that period started.  This pushing back (or up) "winning time."

The OP suggested intentional fouls be called as such, all game long, so at any point they would be detrimental to a teams come-back efforts.

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

On 10/29/2018 at 1:39 PM, iuswingman said:

Anyone wish that all intentional fouls were called as such?

Everyone knows that players are fouling intentionally to stop the clock at the end of the game when they are slightly behind on the scoreboard.

I know we use the strategy just like everyone else.  However, it's hardly fun to watch.  I think it would better if they would just call like it was, an intentional foul, and stop that from being a strategy to stretch out the game.

 

 

47 minutes ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

The OP suggested intentional fouls be called as such, all game long, so at any point they would be detrimental to a teams come-back efforts.

What I'm saying is if fouls are called intentional starting at whatever random mark that the team who is behind would start fouling before that mark to try and make up the deficit.  I believe something similar happened in the NBA, now they just look for Dwight or whoever is the turrble FT shooter before the time fouls really hurt you.  The same thing would happen in college.  It's strategy.

I'm also saying who determines an intentional foul.  Yes, there are some obvious ones where a player wraps up another but if you're down at the end of the game won't you be trying to steal the ball?  That would lead to more contact which would be called a foul or "intentional" with what the OP laid out. 

[iuswingman 1,940]

i never said every foul at the end of a game should be called intentional. 

there is a difference between a basketball play and grabbing a player or swatting at them.

 

 

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

Just now, iuswingman said:

i never said every foul at the end of a game should be called intentional. 

there is a difference between a basketball play and grabbing a player or swatting at them.

 

 

Exactly, teams can still foul while trapping and it will be a normal foul, foul on a drive and it will be a normal foul, foul fighting through a screen, normal foul. Wrap up a guy the second he catches the in bounds pass, intentional.

The refs would determine it based on their experience and the wording of the rule. We all know when it occurs and what it looks like.

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

4 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

i never said every foul at the end of a game should be called intentional. 

there is a difference between a basketball play and grabbing a player or swatting at them.

 

 

How would you distinguish them?  If they were called intentional then players would start reaching to get the foul instead of just tapping a player.  I can see how just calling the foul could make the game a bit safer for the players at the end too.

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

2 minutes ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

Exactly, teams can still foul while trapping and it will be a normal foul, foul on a drive and it will be a normal foul, foul fighting through a screen, normal foul. Wrap up a guy the second he catches the in bounds pass, intentional.

The refs would determine it based on their experience and the wording of the rule. We all know when it occurs and what it looks like.

Player reaches as soon as the ball is inbounded.  Intentional? 

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

1 minute ago, HoosierAloha said:

Player reaches as soon as the ball is inbounded.  Intentional? 

I said wrap up, you know a bear hug. It's different and obvious.

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

5 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

How would you distinguish them?  If they were called intentional then players would start reaching to get the foul instead of just tapping a player.  I can see how just calling the foul could make the game a bit safer for the players at the end too.

I think what you're referring to would correct its-self fairly quickly as called intentional fouls would put an end to that "strategy"

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

2 minutes ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

I said wrap up, you know a bear hug. It's different and obvious.

I was asking about reaching in though because it's different...

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

Just now, HoosierHoops1 said:

I think what you're referring to would correct its-self fairly quickly as called intentional fouls would put an end to that "strategy"

That's the point though.  If it puts an end to the strategy why not just end the game after 35 minutes if a team is up X number of points.

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

2 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

That's the point though.  If it puts an end to the strategy why not just end the game after 35 minutes if a team is up X number of points.

Because they may get some "real" defensive stops. Teams go on runs throughout the game. Why can't the trailing team go on a 12-0 run to end the game without the foul strategy?

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

4 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I was asking about reaching in though because it's different...

To me a basketball play would not be intentional. Wrapping up, is an intentional fouling play. Reaching in to knock the ball loose, is a normal basketball play.

[HoosierAloha 29,957]

Because they may get some "real" defensive stops. Teams go on runs throughout the game. Why can't the trailing team go on a 12-0 run to end the game without the foul strategy?

Those 12-0 runs could potentially happen but if the team that is up 10 with 2 minutes to go "sat" on the ball every possession the percentage would go down drastically.

The team who was up would hold the ball for 30 seconds. The team who was down would score in maybe 10. The up team would hold for 30 seconds, etc. That would be more boring to end a game. Why not just end the game with 2 minutes to go if a team is up double digits?

I like the strategy to the end of games now. It puts pressure on players to hit their free throws, which we've seen in the past that great free throw shooters struggle to make. It sounds like you, and a few others, just want to see defenders act like they're going for the ball. That's fine but regardless the intent is still to stop the clock and get the ball back. A good coach would be stressing to try for a steak while ensuring the foul is committed if he misses the steal.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app