An interesting idea to end late-game foulfests

Turn off the clock at the under-4:00 TV time out. Add seven points to the leading team’s score at that point. Say it’s 77-70 at the under-4. Winner is the first team to 84. Unless the leading team is really horrible at the line, no incentive to foul, great incentive to play great D and get stops. Also no incentive to start jacking up wild threes early in the shot clock. Work your offense, get a good shot. The only thing really noteworthy it would eliminate is the buzzerbeater. But that same shot could be like a walk-off homer – hit a three to get to 84 in my example.
<LINK_TEXT text=“ … ng-minutes”></LINK_TEXT>

In your example, if you added 7 points to a team leading 77-70, the game would end immediately because the leading team would then have 84 points. I wouldn’t mind doing something to reduce the late game fouls, but perhaps something as simple as making every foul under 4 minutes carry a 3-shot FT penalty would work.

Huh? Ok, I guess I have to spell this out. The target score that ends the game is set by adding seven to the leading team’s score at the under-4. In this scenario, 84. So if the team with 70 can get enough stops, they can win by scoring 14 points to 6 or less.

The only thing worse than repeated fouling to send the team to the line for one-and-ones is the repeated fouling when the trailing team isn’t even over the limit yet. I’ve seen teams foul three times in five seconds to finally get to seven fouls and start the FT parade. Not sure I like the three-shot foul. I remember the old NBA rule where teams had three shots to make two in certain situations. I can remember Dave Zinkoff, the longtime PA guy at the Sixers’ arena with a very distinctive, gravely voice, saying “THIS… is the penalty shot”. The penalty shot being that third shot after missing one of the first two. Not quite sure why the NBA dropped that rule. Maybe they wanted to encourage more comebacks.

Keep the rule the same but at 15 team fouls it is two shots and possession on fouls away from the basket.

Well, if one team has 77 points, you add 7 points, & the winner is the first team to 84 points, you end the game then & there. Might not have been what you meant, but it’s what you said. Regardless, I don’t like the idea of adding points like that. I’m sure there are many ways to reduce the number of intentional fouls & to shorten the game at the end–assuming that’s a worthy goal. (I’m not that sure it is.) Just seems to me the better way to reduce the number of such fouls is to increase the penalty for making them. Hogfanfish’s suggestion is another way to do it.

I’ve rarely liked any rule change when they were first instituted. Generally came to accept them & even like some of them. I suppose that will be the case if they change the rules on fouls, too.

I’d prefer a rule which allowed the team that was fouled to decline the free-throw attempts. It would work both ways, no matter if the fouling team is ahead or behind. Shot-clock wouldn’t reset.

I read about this a few months back. NBA execs weren’t entirely dismissive of it and thought it was a pretty solid idea. But obviously the odds of it happening are miniscule.

Here is my issue with this. You said turn the clock off at the under 4 timeout (for example 3:30). I’ve seen teams not score 6 points in the final “4 mins” and I’ve seen even less score 14. So, if neither gets to 84 in that 3:30, let’s say one scores 6 (83) and one scores 13 (83) is there no longer an overtime, and how do you know the game ends at what is supposed to be the 20 min mark of the second half (college)? Is the game automatically extended?

Edit: My question is confusing, so let me clarify:

In college there is two 20 min halves. The final media timeout is the “under 4 min” timeout. I’ve seen this timeout happen anywhere from under 3 mins to 3:59. Anyway, let’s say AR and KY are playing at BWA. The final timeout happens at 3:30. AR is leading 77-70. At the end of the 20 mins, AR is leading 83-75, but under this rule the game wouldn’t end because AR didn’t reach 84. So KY goes on a 9-0 run over the next 5 mins (which would as of now be OT if they’re tied at the end of 20 mins). So, KY would be given extra time to win a game it should lose. Is that what this is saying?

Yes. The game could be extended – or shortened. It becomes like a playground game, first one to X wins, no clock. The lead team could score the first three times it has the ball after the clock is turned off (a 3 and two twos), get seven points and the game would end probably after 38 minutes. Or if both teams go cold, it could last for a while. Of course, once the clock is turned off you’d only be guessing when the 20 minutes would have ended, based on the shot clock and other factors. But you are correct, we could get to 83, stall out, Kentucky goes on a run to win. However, if the game is close, and the lead team doesn’t score 7 points in the final four minutes, they’re probably not going to win anyway.

No, Counselor, that’s not what I said. I didn’t say you added seven points on the scoreboard. Which is what you are contending. Damn lawyers twisting people’s words… :stuck_out_tongue:

I like something along these lines. Not saying I agree with it, but I like the thinking of a time behind being penalized.

I’m not opposed to speeding the game up by eliminating foul-fests in the final minutes. I’m not sure turning the clock off would do that because if a team a notoriously poor FT-shooting team, then the team behind will still foul them and trying to go on a 14-6 run for the win. Let’s change the scenario to 77-75. Now it’s a one-game possession and may not even really be that if at the under-4 timeout the ball is in the hands of the trailing team.

Besides, I think turning off the clock is too radical. You play 36+ minutes with a clock and then settle the game with penalty kicks–kind of the same thinking for basketball. It might be one thing for overtime, but not for every game. Penalize the team behind with the 3-to-make-2 penalty or one-and-one plus possession. Like Swine, I have seen teams commit as many fouls as necessary within seconds just to get the opponent in the bonus, but I’m afraid if given a choice between FTs and possession, then on the throw-in, the trailing team will foul again and again and again until the winning team gives in and shoots FTs (or until the entire bench has fouled out). Either way, it could be pretty ugly.

Okay. I see what you’re saying now. I don’t think I’d like that system, but like I said, there have been several rule changes over the years I didn’t like initially & later came to like. (I didn’t want a shot clock & wasn’t too sure about a 3 point line.)

Why take out what has been a key skill in basketball for decades, the free throw? It has been a part of end-game strategy that depends on icy calm at the line in the face of adversity. How many times did the Razorbacks depend on that this past year?