Should The NBA Foul Out Rule Be Eliminated?

[Buddahfan]

To my knowledge it is the only sport where players are charged fouls/penalties in which they can be eliminated from playing in a game when their foul/penalty count has reached an arbitrary, who decided on six anyway?, level.

If it were up to me I would make the following changes to the foul out rule.

1. Eliminate it

Six fouls seems to be some magic number in the NBA or five in college; i.e. one foul per eight game minutes I guess. So I would stay with that magic number and make changes two and three below after a player commits their sixth foul in a game and from the sixth foul on

2. Player sits for anywhere from two to five minutes from his sixth foul on including at the end of a game. A player could then still in actuality foul out if they commit foul six or greater when the time remaining in the game is equal to or less than the time they would be required to sit.

3. From the sixth foul on add on foul shot in the form of technical foul to what the normal foul situation on that foul call is.

I think that this would take away a some of the ref related home call advantage that home teams have.

People pay to see the best players play. The games are a lot more enjoyable when the better players can remain on the court and don't have to sit especially because of early foul trouble. Making this rule change would minimize the number of two fouls in first quarter automatic go sit on the bench that almost all coaches use.

[Hotshot]

Sounds good on paper however this will increase the number of fouls per game tremendously and thus slow down the game and make it longer.

I think a better solution is to allow more contact for a players to get away with just like they did in the 80's because as it stands right now, every little bump and the refs are whistling foul.

[verbatim]

Well, there is no incentive anymore to avoid fouling and go for a clean block, especially if the person a 50% FT shooter. Even 75% is better than a 100% chance on a layup. The game would slow down tremendously, and thus be even less enjoyable - something we are both after.

Furthermore, the argument that 6 fouls is arbitrary, therefore we should eliminate it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All rules are to a greater or lesser extent arbitrary. Who said the player should sit out 5 minutes and not 10? That is just as arbitrary as assigning 6 fouls. The idea, I think, is that 6 fouls is reasonable throughout the course of a game, and balances the interest of the players driving to try and draw a foul and a player either using one of his fouls or avoiding contact.

One could make the argument, I think, that 6 is not enough given how easily touch fouls are called on guards these days when they are driving. Furthermore, some lament about the disappearance of the good hard foul, mostly for fear of using up one of the 6.

Free throws incessantly, one team after another is not the way to go.

[Buddahfan]

It seems to me that very few players would commit six fouls or more in a game even with the rule change. So I don't see a lot of slow down in the game.

The main advantage to doing this is it would tend to keep the opponents best players on the court more so especially in the first quarter during road games.

The best way for the officials to control a game usually for the home team is to blow two quick first quarter fouls on the visiting teams best player/players.

This really messes up the competitiveness of the game.

Foul calls will always be somewhat arbitrary. Allowing more contact before calling a foul would certainly help a great deal. I hate those ticky tack "no harm no foul" calls as Chick Hearn called them.

It seems to me that unless a player is knocked on his ass during a shot than a foul should not be called if the shot goes in.

[Raptorman]

Take away that rule and it will be a bloodbath. You will have goons just like in hockey. They would stand under the hoop and just hack away!

PS. Soccer/volleyball have red cards that eliminate you from the game.

[Buddahfan]

Take away that rule and it will be a bloodbath. You will have goons just like in hockey. They would stand under the hoop and just hack away!

PS. Soccer/volleyball have red cards that eliminate you from the game.

What would be the point of having goons? You are basically giving the opposing team an extra free point every time it happens, through the add on technical free throw that would be awarded from the sixth foul on.

No team is going to want to give up 5 to 10 free points a game. Besides goons are not going to get enough time on the court to accumulate six fouls because goons can't play well enough to earn the court time to get the fouls. In addition goons are just what there name implies. It doesn't mean that they commit too many fouls but that their fouls are extremely vicious. If a goon comes in and gives vicious foul then it would be a flagrant and they would get disqualified and fined for that. Using goons in basketball would not make any sense even with a no foul out rule.

I was wrong about the disqualifications in other sports. It appears that there are numerous sports in which a player can be disqualified from a game due to receiving a red card. In soccer it appears that two yellow cards during a game automatically generate a red card and thus disqualification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_card

[Apollo]

If you take a bite out of how players are penalized currently its going to make the game more choppy. It will hurt the flow. A player is going to be far more liberal with his actions if he knows he can always come back later in the game regardless. I think clutching and grabbing would go up. The league has made moves to work away from that kind of game, they're not going to turn around and head back to it.

[.40 Cal Flakes]

Should The NBA Foul Out Rule Be Eliminated?

No.

[DarkKnight]

Should The NBA Foul Out Rule Be Eliminated?

No.

lol best reply yet. Exactly what I was thinking.