Changes to fouling out rules?

I meant to post this at the weekend as it was brought up during the Lakers/Heat game. Basically it was another one of Jeff Van Gundy's "They've got to change that" diatribes, where he suggested that the foul limit was too restrictive and resulted in stars sitting on the bench with foul trouble, which "no one wants to see". Suggestions for an alternative approach included the method used by the ABA in which players may continue to play after their sixth foul but a technical foul is also assessed for each personal foul a player picks up starting with his sixth foul (similar to what happens when a player fouls out but there are no available substitutes to take his place).

Personally, I think it's a creative approach but unnecessary. It wasn't the first time Van Gundy brought up the idea during a game I've seen this season, this time being in response to Kobe picking up two fouls in the first quarter. It's a similar argument to the one made against Kobe's suspension before a game in New York a couple of years ago, the claim being that he only plays in New York once a year and thus his absence is cheating the fans who want to see him play. To me, giving Kobe or any other star that kind of leeway is creating yet another double standard for star players at a time when the integrity of the game is under fire and there is a healthy does of dissatisfaction with superstar calls amongst NBA fans.

For the record, Kobe ended up playing 42 minutes in that game against the Heat, a little under six minutes more than he's averaging on the season so those two early fouls hardly prevented the fans from watching him play. The refs are usually a bit hesitant on that third foul unless it's really blatant so you don't see players like Kobe and LeBron fouling out frequently anyway, so I don't think the whole "It's keeping superstars out of the game" argument holds much water. At the end of the day, the foul limit is part of the challenge of basketball and while it may marr some games, that's just the way it goes sometimes; I hardly think it's ruining the sport. If there's a problem with fouls in the NBA, it's in the way that they are called, not the number players are allowed to commit.

Youre right, Andrew. As a European I have to say that the idea of Van Gundy and especially the argument that "no one wants to see" star player sitting on the bench with foul trouble is just typical for the NBA. It's more entertainment and business than sports at times, at least this argument is proving it. If a star player does two clear fouls then he should be called for them. In Europe you would not see any non-calls just too make the game more entertaining. It's a sport and you have to play with the rules given.

This is just another case of what I don't like in the NBA despite being a huge fan of it. You hear about McDonaghey or whatever this ref's name is and how some referees might have called fouls just because they bet on it etc. Things like "don't let the star players sit out" just add more flavor to this point. Entertainment first is just not exactly what I want from a sport.

With more fouls allowed, I'd be worried to see the game stuttering even more with fouls. And like Andrew says, it's a part of challenge for a player and for the team. If anyone's gonna foul, let scrub players do it, not your star player.

I think you'd still have players trying to avoid getting six fouls as a technical foul each team risks giving up an additional point, so there probably wouldn't be an increase in fouls as you still couldn't foul freely and indiscriminately. However, it could still get very ugly and it's unnecessarily protecting players.

I agree with you Andrew, changing the foul rules are really unnecessary, and like Hova said, NBA is a professional sports league and not an entertainment industry. To be fair, star players do bring in crowds, but they're there to watch a game of basketball, and if the players aren't following the rules correctly (ie. fouling) then the crowd should take it up with the player, not the system that the game runs under. Special treatment is unnecessary, changing the fouling rules is unnecessary.

Last edited by Lightning Strike on Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's not like teams are constantly going to their deep bench because half the lineup has fouled out either, nor do star players usually lead the league in number of times fouled out. Jeff Van Gundy has a habit of noticing something during a game, deciding it's actually a huge problem and proclaiming sweeping changes that must be made.

I think you'd still have players trying to avoid getting six fouls as a technical foul each team risks giving up an additional point, so there probably wouldn't be an increase in fouls as you still couldn't foul freely and indiscriminately. However, it could still get very ugly and it's unnecessarily protecting players.

That's how they do fouls in summer league. I remember the first year Oden played summer league he'd end a game with like 9 fouls lol, the ones after 6 were Techs.

I'd just increase it to 7 fouls. Then coaches won't feel as much need to bench guys as soon as they get more fouls than the quarter they are playing in. It's really formulaic.

It's not like teams are constantly going to their deep bench because half the lineup has fouled out either, nor do star players usually lead the league in number of times fouled out.

Exactly.

Just on a note, Dwyane Wade averages 3 fouls per game, but if he happens to get 2 in the first quarter, Miami will bench him for the rest of it. If he is only averaging 3 fouls per game, do you think it's really necessary to bench him and put the rest of the team at a disadvantage so early in the game?

I guess there's still the possibility he could pick up a third foul and meet his average before the first quarter's through, so there's a method to the madness especially if the referees are calling it tight or ridiculously ticky-tack; I'd say it has some merit. However, like I said before the refs are likely going to be hesitant to call that third foul especially on a star unless it's utterly blatant, so at times it's a wasteful strategy. It depends on the situation: if a player's a bit out of rhythm and their team's doing alright regardless, maybe sitting them and bringing them back at the start of the second quarter isn't such a bad idea. Likewise, if there's only a minute or so left in the first quarter it would be as good a chance as any to give them a breather and save them picking up another cheap foul as the quarter winds down, before bringing them back early in the second.

Make it so the person fouled shoots the technical.

I don't like Jeff Van Gundy's idea here. If star players have to sit on the bench with foul trouble, then it's their problem. They are ordinary players too and putting this idea forward is like giving them yet another privilege. Jeff is basically saying that star players should play a lot of minutes without getting affected by foul trouble because people want to see them play. Well screw that, that completely alters the purpose of sports. True, these star players draw the crowds and essentially the money, but the NBA is a sports league and not something like the WWE. Superstars in the NBA have an easy enough time on the court and they get enough superstar calls already. Even though this foul idea thingy applies to all players Jeff Van Gundy's argument doesn't make up for it because he wants to see this change just so that star players can play more minutes, which is off the point. Everything is already good as it is and this idea is just unnecessary.

NBA is a professional sports league and not an entertainment industry. To be fair, star players do bring in crowds, but they're the to watch a game of basketball, and if the players aren't following the rules correctly (ie. fouling) then the crowd should take it up with the player, not the system that the game runs under.

Couldn't agree more with what you've written.

Although I'm not a Kobe fan or sensitive to the superstar fetishism it's not surprising stuff like this is brought up when it's a superstar that sits down. I wouldn't want the rules to change because of that - or at all, but I do think it would make some matchups more fair. No player would have to sit down with two or more ticky tack fouls which can really influence games and even playoff series and championships. Other way to put it: it would be a little less hard to beat the refs on any given night.