Darth Tater has a new contest for the forum
Check it out!
Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by dba, Jun 8, 2010.
That rule is in there to protect the game from too many fouls. Game is choppy enough as it is with all the trips to the line, this may make it unwatchable. Plus guys like Ben Wallace may as well retire since players would have to maintain a 70% or so FT pct to avoid getting fouled everytime they shoot. We need less foul calls not more. Instead of inventing rules to smooth out the damage from inconsistant referring why not tackle the problem itself and work on consistancy of calls from game to game. That way players know exacly what a foul is on any given game and don't do it if they want to stay in the game. I know I am dreaming.
Amen, couldn't have said it better!
Yeah, for sure. The refs and/or the entire officiating system sucks. That is the major problem with the game as I see it. But I still think they shouldn't throw guys out of the game based on the number of fouls they get.
I think they should throw the refs out after a ref has made n calls.
I always thought it would be cool if they had a penalty box like Hockey. If a player gets 6 fouls the team plays a man short for a minute.
Hmmm...Actually, I do like the idea of sitting his butt out for a minute on a flagrant foul. And if the other team outscores the penalized team by 6 points during that time, then the refs call a timeout and bring the (Ron Artest) naughty offender back into the game.
So, in our case, if a player gets 6 fouls, we'll be forced to play CV for a full minute?
If they want higher scoring then 5 on 4 would do it.
Replace NBA refs with hockey refs, give them a 15 minute primer on the rules, and see how it goes.
Fine his a** for every 6 fouls by 1/82 of his salary.
Separate names with a comma.