re: Should basketball coaches be able to decline free throws?

quote:

---

Would it improve the end of basketball games if coaches were allowed to decline free throws, and inbound the ball instead?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If you are lunging for the ball, then that's not an off-the-ball foul. On-ball fouls in the penalty are always free throws.

---

Not under the OP's idea. The team can decline free throws in this hypothetical. It's unrealistic and would make the ends of games far worse than they are now.

quote:

---

I assume we're talking about trying to eliminate the "hack-a" strategy from the game, and only talking about off-ball fouls.

---

Hacka occurs in probably less than 1% of all NBA games. It isn't some epidemic. There are four non-all-stars in the NBA who get hacked. That isn't worth changing a rule.

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?

Too lazy to read this thread. I know the purists have probably made their point and changing a basic tenet/historical tactic of the game seems crazy, but I have always felt that fouling to catch up cheapens the game and defeats the purpose of a good floor game/game control. FTs should be a reward, not a penalty IMO.

quote:

---

Wrong. With one minute left, it behooves the team who is ahead to keep the ball rather than shoot free throws. This creates a scenario far worse than what we currently have. The trailing team inevitably will keep fouling, and the only thing that will happen is a lot of inbound plays. What we have now is way better.

---

If I'm a coach who is up 2 with a minute left, and my guy who is an 85% free throw shooter gets fouled, there's a damn good chance I have him shoot those and try to stretch to a two possession lead, than risk having to inbound the ball with that slim a lead (remember, if team that's down doesn't foul, and I don't convert, they now have the ball down two...so coaches would not foul on purpose in this situation).

Also, as to your point about "a lot of goons on the bench with zero fouls", that also doesn't make sense...a foul resets the shot clock, so if your strategy is just "foul relentlessly with my bench guys", you will either have all your bench guys foul out without ever gaining possession, or those guys will get torched by the opposition before they can foul.

You have yet to post one thought in this thread where I go "that's actually a good point." Like I said earlier, the only real objection I can imagine would be that there would still be the same number of fouls, just that they'd be followed by inbounds passes. But, as was the point of this thread, the team who is getting fouled should get to weigh the risk/reward of trying to extend with FTs or inbound against pressure.

quote:

---

Teams should have a designated ft shooter. Nothing worse than watching some 50%er clang it off the goal.

---

Must be a Rockets or Clippers fan

quote:

---

It's called the off the ball foul rule and it's been in place since the sixties, they just never call it

---

They call it all of the time. Go read the rule about it.

quote:

---

. It only applies to the last two minutes of the game and you get foul shots and the ball, though I think they updated it to allow teams to pick the shooter from anyone now. 

It just never gets called

---

It applies all game, but you only get a few throw + the ball in the last 2 minutes. I already posted that in this thread. It doesn't get called much in the last 2 minutes because people foul the ball handler because they know the rules.

quote:

---

I can't think of ever seeing it called. Like ever... In 25years of watching the nba.

---

Before 2 minutes left it's just a two shot foul. Watch a clippers game and you will see it called. Under 2 minutes and people don't commit away from the play fouls because it makes no sense to do it.

I apologize if this has been posted but I tried to read the whole thread and my ADHD kicked in on page three.

I get where the OP is coming from. I have no problem with the original rules of basketball. The problem is when the 3 pointer came in to play. It allows the team that is behind, a chance to score 3 points for every 2 point possession for the team ahead.

My suggestion:

If you foul a team in the backcourt, it's two shots and the ball for the offense. That would allow the team ahead to run off about 10 seconds before they are fouled.

the NBA is going to end up having to take action, since things are reaching a logical extreme w/ guys jumping on an opponent's back during free throws and fouling the inbounder now (I confess I did not know you could do that, I figured it was a technical).

When it effects the entertainment value of the league, their hand will be forced. I don't think that declining free throws will happen, since shooting free throws is part of the game, rather consequences of that strategy will change to discourage the strategy -- like 2 plus the ball or 3 shots or something.