End of Game Rule Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1      

SkyysNotFalling

SkyysNotFalling
SkyysNotFalling
Was listening to the latest Mark Titus podcast & him and his cohost were discussing how unwatchable the end of college basketball games have become. Sparked by the end of the MSU/Illinois game where Izzo elected to foul up 3… Titus made a very interesting suggestion.. Teams can decline free throws on intentional fouls. I mean, why not? Teams decline penalties in football all the time. Why can’t teams decline a foul, and keep possession instead? Especially when you’re losing?

Thoughts? Is this feasible?
 
#3      
Big Jack
SkyysNotFalling said:
Was listening to the latest Mark Titus podcast & him and his cohost were discussing how unwatchable the end of college basketball games have become. Sparked by the end of the MSU/Illinois game where Izzo elected to foul up 3… Titus made a very interesting suggestion.. Teams can decline free throws on intentional fouls. I mean, why not? Teams decline penalties in football all the time. Why can’t teams decline a foul, and keep possession instead? Especially when you’re losing?

Thoughts? Is this feasible?
Click to expand...
Yea I think Fly Illini is right.. Maybe add a rule that if the foul is deemed intentional make it a 3 shot foul if it occurs outside of the 3 pt line.. if you are going to make a change..
 
#4      
the juiceman cometh
Big Jack said:
Yea I think Fly Illini is right.. Maybe add a rule that if the foul is deemed intentional make it a 3 shot foul if it occurs outside of the 3 pt line.. if you are going to make a change..
Click to expand...
Or how about for intentional fouls in the last 2 minutes or something, the team that is fouled gets to pick who takes the FTs. That way you can still keep bad FT shooters in the game.
 
#6      
SkyysNotFalling
Fly Illini Fly! said:
I mean... you're down one, opponent has the ball, around 20 sec. left - you'll never get the ball back.
Click to expand...
Sorry second response- you’d only never get the ball back if the opponent declines the free throws, which wouldn’t always be a given. Secondly, declining fouls calls for inbounding the ball multiple times in different spots… how many college teams can successfully inbound the ball under pressure consistently? There’s a risk and reward whichever way you see it.
 
#7      
RockfordIllini
I don’t know. I’m not sure teams fouling up 3 in the closing seconds makes the end of games unwatchable. To me it’s the never ending parade of replays.

I think there should be some combination of coaches challenges allowed and/or some sort of time limit on the length of reviews. Maybe after 2 minutes the ref’s replay screen shuts off and if in that time they didn’t see enough to overturn the call on the floor, they have to let it stand and play on.

I get wanting to get calls right. But to me replay is for correcting clear and obvious missed calls like the ball clearly going off of Miami in our tourney game. That call could have been reversed in about 10 seconds with replay. If refs are having to spend 10 minutes dissecting every possible angle to try and assess whether a call was a correct, to me that shows it’s not clear and obvious so let’s play on.
 
#8      
EllderIlliniFan
RockfordIllini said:
I don’t know. I’m not sure teams fouling up 3 in the closing seconds makes the end of games unwatchable. To me it’s the never ending parade of replays.

I think there should be some combination of coaches challenges allowed and/or some sort of time limit on the length of reviews. Maybe after 2 minutes the ref’s replay screen shuts off and if in that time they didn’t see enough to overturn the call on the floor, they have to let it stand and play on.

I get wanting to get calls right. But to me replay is for correcting clear and obvious missed calls like the ball clearly going off of Miami in our tourney game. That call could have been reversed in about 10 seconds with replay. If refs are having to spend 10 minutes dissecting every possible angle to try and assess whether a call was a correct, to me that shows it’s not clear and obvious so let’s play on.
Click to expand...
I have always felt that on replays if they cannot see an obvious error within 30 seconds, the on field call stands. Replays were not meant to make every call exact. They were created to fix obvious incorrect calls. This should be the rule in all sports at all levels.
 
#11      
21ChampaignSt
SkyysNotFalling said:
Sorry second response- you’d only never get the ball back if the opponent declines the free throws, which wouldn’t always be a given. Secondly, declining fouls calls for inbounding the ball multiple times in different spots… how many college teams can successfully inbound the ball under pressure consistently? There’s a risk and reward whichever way you see it.
Click to expand...
And this would make the game....more watchable?

College basketball is being played faster and with more points scored than ever before. I don't see an issue. Fouling has always been an end of game strategy. Even the relatively new practice of fouling up 3 has some intrigue to it. Will they or won't they? How long do you wait to foul? Who do you foul? What if they foul a shooter?

It didn't work out in our favor on Sunday, but it still gave us one of the most exciting plays of the game - Boswell intentionally missing the free throw, a scramble for the rebound, then the shot over the backboard.

If there were a rule change though, intentional fouls should be treated as a technical where the team that gets fouled gets one shot and the ball back. But then, how do you judge intent in that situation? It really just gives the refs another opportunity to screw us. KJ breathes on a guy in the final seconds up 3 and the refs call it an intentional foul. Now we're only up 2 and the opposing team has a chance to win.
 
#12      
CoalCity
SkyysNotFalling said:
Was listening to the latest Mark Titus podcast & him and his cohost were discussing how unwatchable the end of college basketball games have become. Sparked by the end of the MSU/Illinois game where Izzo elected to foul up 3… Titus made a very interesting suggestion.. Teams can decline free throws on intentional fouls. I mean, why not? Teams decline penalties in football all the time. Why can’t teams decline a foul, and keep possession instead? Especially when you’re losing?

Thoughts? Is this feasible?
Click to expand...
Then you have the argument of how do you determine an intentional foul especially if its disguised as going for the ball and not just grabbing a guy. The refs will go to the monitor for 5 minutes to try to determine intent.
 
#13      
doowink
I don't have an issue with the intentional fouling at the end of a game, that's a strategy that's part of the game just like backing off a player that's not a good 3 pt. shooter...let them shoot the 3....make a poor FT shooter make FT's ....now...letting the teams huddle with the coach or huddle in the free throw lane area for 30 seconds before they actually get lined up for the FT shot needs to stop...and then once they're lined up you'll have a couple players switch sides of the lane a couple times before the official hands the ball to the shooter....then throw in a review or two to see if a players hand or arm was near the head or neck area of an opposing player (trying to determine if it's flagrant or not), or looking at a review to add .2 of a second, so that the clock reads .8 instead of .6 seconds remaining, are things that really slow down the end of a game. The final minute of the OSU/Purdue game the other night is a good example of what were talking about
 
#15      
Old Farm Illini
the juiceman cometh said:
Or how about for intentional fouls in the last 2 minutes or something, the team that is fouled gets to pick who takes the FTs. That way you can still keep bad FT shooters in the game.
Click to expand...
This would result in harder fouls that try to appear to be basketball play. Personally, I wouldn't change this aspect of the game but they need to find a way to reduce the stoppage of play, whether it's adding more tech to reduce human error with clock situations but they need to get the show moving so that coaches aren't getting these extra timeouts by default.
 
#16      
Illini2010-11
SkyysNotFalling said:
Was listening to the latest Mark Titus podcast & him and his cohost were discussing how unwatchable the end of college basketball games have become. Sparked by the end of the MSU/Illinois game where Izzo elected to foul up 3… Titus made a very interesting suggestion.. Teams can decline free throws on intentional fouls. I mean, why not? Teams decline penalties in football all the time. Why can’t teams decline a foul, and keep possession instead? Especially when you’re losing?

Thoughts? Is this feasible?
Click to expand...
Actually Izzo fouling made it more interesting. We did end up "rebounding" the intentional miss and had the over the backboard shot.

Not sure the declining free throws option would make much sense. It would be an endless loop of fouls until the game ended (unless there was a problem inbounding the ball). I think what can be possibly looked at is the intentional foul aspect. If it is so blatant that it was not a play on the ball, one could argue it should be one free throw and the ball. Of course, the opposite is also true when a team is down and intentionally fouling. I personally do not believe any rule change is necessary in this respect. The team fouling up 3 still has to rebound the ball, so there is risk with that strategy as well.
 
#17      
Fighter of the Nightman
Fly Illini Fly! said:
I mean... you're down one, opponent has the ball, around 20 sec. left - you'll never get the ball back.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this actually kills something I love about college basketball that football lacks - you can maintain hope for a comeback WAY later in the game. While not as hopeful as baseball (until you get those last three outs, anything can happen ... no timer), it's infinitely better than football. I find football to be somewhat anticlimactic when momentum appears to be shifting or at least equalizing, and one team can simply use the clock to its advantage.
 
#19      
the juiceman cometh
Scoregasm said:
Elam ending.
Click to expand...

See Ya Reaction GIF by WWE
 
#21      
1m4tr
I would make it easier for refs to call a shooting foul when the winning team fouls the losing team up 3. Give continuation legitimacy so they have to think twice about fouling. The losing team would always try to be in the act of shooting and it would be hilarious to see a three-quarter court heave thinking he was going to be fouled only for the defender to back off. Would put some real cat and mouse strategy here.
 
#22      
OrangeBlue98
Scoregasm said:
Elam ending.
Click to expand...
That would be my choice as well, but unfortunately I think that was a hopeful fad that has lost its luster. I don't really have a great idea for this, but I'll try . . .

If we are going to use the current timing/scoring rules of the game, I think the only change that would be enough to move the needle would be to award one point to a team for any foul in the last two minutes. If it's a "regular" foul, then it's one point and one free throw. If it's an intentional foul, it's still one point with the regular intentional foul rules (two free throws and possession) applying. But I can't really think of anything else. Yes, the free throw parade stinks, but any change that's not the Elam ending seems to be too far outside of the traditional scoring rules (i.e. you can't score a point unless the ball goes through the net). That includes this idea to be honest.

The buzz around the Elam Ending dying out disappointed me, because I had some hope for it after the 2020 NBA All-Star game actually became competitive in the fourth quarter. But I think that was an example of a really good change that didn't catch on because of "We've always done it this way".
 
Last edited:
#23      
aaeismacgychel
While I like the Elam ending, those clock running down 1 possession game buzzer beaters are in many ways what college basketball is all about, and I do feel that Elam somewhat neuters those moments. And I think that added clock pressure adds something to the college game.

Really, I think the answer is more about refs being instructed to call the game as written. Basically, fouling up 3 is fine, but you have to make a play on the ball. If you attempt to wrap up or grab a player on the other team either during play or on the inbounds while not making that foul in the vicinity of the ball, call it an intentional foul and treat it as a flagrant 1, giving the team 2 free throws and possession. And call it both ways, for the team in the lead and the one that's trailing. Doing so makes it more of a risk to foul up 3, as it could lead to the intentional foul call or it makes it easier for it to be a shooting foul. And for the team that's trailing, it also means you can't drag out the game by giving fouls without making a basketball play on the ball. So I think it would solve most issues we're discussing.
 
#24      
1m4tr
aaeismacgychel said:
While I like the Elam ending, those clock running down 1 possession game buzzer beaters are in many ways what college basketball is all about, and I do feel that Elam somewhat neuters those moments. And I think that added clock pressure adds something to the college game.

Really, I think the answer is more about refs being instructed to call the game as written. Basically, fouling up 3 is fine, but you have to make a play on the ball. If you attempt to wrap up or grab a player on the other team either during play or on the inbounds while not making that foul in the vicinity of the ball, call it an intentional foul and treat it as a flagrant 1, giving the team 2 free throws and possession. And call it both ways, for the team in the lead and the one that's trailing. Doing so makes it more of a risk to foul up 3, as it could lead to the intentional foul call or it makes it easier for it to be a shooting foul. And for the team that's trailing, it also means you can't drag out the game by giving fouls without making a basketball play on the ball. So I think it would solve most issues we're discussing.
Click to expand...
This makes the most sense. I’m on board with this.
 
#25      
sbillini
to me, end of game fouling rules are way down my list of what makes college basketball unwatchable.

just officiating in general, especially on ticky tacky touch foul situations, is what makes college basketball unwatchable. There's where the energy (and a lot of it) needs to be spent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back