quote:
You don't get it. Down 8 with a minute left, and I'm lunging for that ball willy nilly. Most likely I'll foul you, but so what? A foul doesn't hurt me here.

See the problem?

A foul puts a player in jeopardy of being disqualified, for one. Also, the opposing coach, assuming he declines the FTs STILL HAS TO INBOUND THE BALL. In late game situations that often leads to turnovers.

Not to mention the coach of the team who is up can choose to shoot them. It's weighing the risk/reward of either having to inbound the ball with no chance at any points vs. taking a shot for a point or two but them not being guaranteed.

A more logical objection would simply be that the same amount of fouls would be committed, it's just that those fouls would potentially be followed by a constant set of inbounds attempts. What's more exciting, watching a guy try to make a FT or two, or the team that's down attempting to get a five second call or turnover on the inbound?

This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 12:22 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ballscaster

Member since Jun 2013

26861 posts

Posted on 1/27/16 at 2:54 pm to Chucktown_Badger

quote:

A foul puts a player in jeopardy of being disqualified,

But it takes 40 before a team runs out of guys. Average team commits what?--20 in a game?

If I'm down 8 with 1:00 left, I have my players foul asap. The other team just keeps inbounding because they want to run clock. It's terrible. The idea is unrealistic because of this inevitability.

quote:

Not to mention the coach of the team who is up can choose to shoot them. It's weighing the risk/reward of either having to inbound the ball with no chance at any points vs. taking a shot for a point or two but them not being guaranteed.

So your idea is good pending the players of the universe actually being good free throw shooters? Kind of like what we have now?

0 ...

Report Post

More Sports - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board