What do you think about this? Winderman: We still haven’t seen real Lakers, Celtics - NBA- nbcsports.msnbc.com I have this kneejerk reaction that removing the six foul limit would damage the game, but I'm having problems coming up with arguments that support that notion.
It is a subsidy for the elite players. They can foul with impunity because their offensive contributions make up the potential bonus points they would give back. I don't know that 6 is the ideal foul #, but I do know that every well meaning intervention has unintended consequences, and removing the foul out limit could dramatically alter the way rotations are handled. And that in turn could change the way the game is played. Not that I am afraid of change, but I already don't like the consequences of past interventions to make the game more high scoring. A move like this could have major reprecussions. Sometimes I wonder if stuff like this is floated, as the PA would obviously oppose it, since it might lead to smaller roster sizes and or shorter rotations, because the CBA negotiations are coming up and the NBA wants to introduce points of contention that they can give to the PA in return for a substantive gain on one of their key issues. Or maybe I have been reading too much Machiavelli lately.
Maybe a few too many princely machinations... It's the unintended consequences or downstream rules changes that are hard to measure. If you could foul with impunity, why not foul Shaq or Ben Wallace every time the ball was inbounded? Do it for 50 possessions and they score maybe 50 points. Seems like a no brainer. It seems like whatever you do, the game would slow down a lot.
To take a comment our leader mentioned.... It would be a superstar only rule... Kobe has 6 fouls... as a coach do you keep him in? no brainer..... At the other end of the game you have Amir at his 6th foul... as much as folks like his def and hustle to this day.. what coach is going to play him to 10 plus fouls if the system gives you two foul shots an the ball out of bounds? So the system is even more superstar driven then it is today, I'd rather see the stars get away with one or two non calls a game then change to a not foul out system... I just hate the idea of doing away with fouling out.
This will destroy the game. One of the most impressive things about the 04 Pistons was their ability to play ferocious defense without fouling. It was a thing of beauty. You can pretty much kiss that goodbye. Also, there will be many more injuries. Imagine Perkins flooring Kobe at every drive.
It would be like inventing a rule where a specialized batter would hit for the pitcher in baseball. A designated person as you will. He would not be able to field, just hit. This would dramatically change the flow of the game, and in effect, improve the offense. But would it make the game better.
I know this is totally OT here but I cant resist: Machiavelli, among of several thinkers( Nietzche, etc) have been demonized, because they do not suit to "standardizised healthcare welfare view".
Unlike the rest of you fellows, I think it would be a good thing to change the rule. If a guy gets a flagrant foul kick him out. Otherwise let him play. The price of too many fouls is some free throws. Maybe after 6 fouls give the other team an extra free throw or something. No reason for a player to sit. They don't kick football or hockey players out for too many penalties. The current rule is entirely stupid, IMHO.
It's a rule that adds an intriguing sort of twist to the whole game. It adds another dimension to the strategy. Also, it's an international rule. The more NBA deviates from the real rules of the game, the worse it gets. The refs not calling any of the travelling drives me crazy for instance.
Playing good defense without fouling should be rewarded....like getting to stay in game. I don't think anyone in the game (players, coaches, executives, etc.) would actually consider anything this foolish.
Definitely need to eliminate the 6 foul rule. Adding a FT for fouls 7-12 and then another for > 13 would do the trick.
They should add more lines on the court, too: 20-23 feet: 3 points 24-27 feet: 4 points 28-half court: 5 points over half court: 7 points dunks can earn bonus points based on style graded by 3 courtside judges. free throws count double if you use your opposite hand, triple if you try it blind-folded.
Well, the best solution would be to have refs that don't try to take all the spotlight as they strangle the flow out of the game, but that will never happen.
Or perhaps you could have when a player picks up his 6th foul he has to sit for X number of minutes (and for every foul after that). That way if there's enough time left they can still come back; they aren't done for the game. I'm thinking maybe 2 or 3 minutes - not really sure. If its late in a game, guys still have to be wary of picking up their 6th foul, but at least it doesn't force guys to sit early on if they get 2 or 3 fouls in the first quarter. I'd be very cautious of doing away with the rule entirely. Things could escalate very quickly with hard fouls and you'd end up in a situation where guys would be getting tossed from the game anyway - only it would be via tech fouls.
Or we could really go back to the caveman days and get rid of the 24 second clock and three point shot. Or go way way back to an all white player league? Sometimes change is for the best...
