End of Game Rule Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
AyoDos11
Here are my proposed changes for game endings:

1. Introduce expedited reviews
-Similar to the NFL's new system. Have the league office or an off-site official review plays immediately following them, and communicate to an onsite official or someone at the scorers table via headset the correct call.
-If the oncourt refs need to review a call, make a time limit of 60 seconds on the review. If it's not clear and obvious, stick with the original call.

2. Intentional fouls committed inside the final 2 minutes of game AND with score differential under 10 result in one free throw and the ball.
-It would essentially be a technical free throw with a sideline OB throw in after.
-This would discourage trailing teams from fouling endlessly with the game already decided, and would return the excitement of a game-tying buzzer beating 3pt shot.

3. Limit the number of timeouts in the final 2 minutes to 2 per team, and eliminate back-to-back TOs without the ball entering play.
-This seems pretty straightforward to me. Everyone hates when the offense calls a TO, the defense doesn't like something, and so they call a timeout before the inbound.
-If you don't call your second timeout before 2:00 on the clock, you simply lose it.

4. Introduce a version of the Elam Ending for overtime.
-From the start of overtime, make the target score somewhere from +7 to +10 of the current score, and whoever gets there first wins the game.

I think these implementations would speed up the game while also (re)adding some excitement back into it. Thoughts?
 
#27      
fuggles
I am in the camp of going back to allowing the offended team to take the ball out of bounds. That will stop this fouling nonsense.
 
#28      
Bbuck21
What if after any foul (especially relavant in crunch time), let the team that was fouled have the ball to inbound as quickly as they want, or if shooting, give them the ball as soon as they are ready at the line and their teammates are set. This would eliminate delays by the defending team to get reorganized. Also, no substitutions at this time. Further, I think anytime a review takes place, the players on the floor have to remain out on the floor, not huddling up like an additional timeout. If the coach wants to shout instructions from the bench, so be it.
 
#29      
OrangeBlue98
AyoDos11 said:
Here are my proposed changes for game endings:

1. Introduce expedited reviews
-Similar to the NFL's new system. Have the league office or an off-site official review plays immediately following them, and communicate to an onsite official or someone at the scorers table via headset the correct call.
-If the oncourt refs need to review a call, make a time limit of 60 seconds on the review. If it's not clear and obvious, stick with the original call.

2. Intentional fouls committed inside the final 2 minutes of game AND with score differential under 10 result in one free throw and the ball.
-It would essentially be a technical free throw with a sideline OB throw in after.
-This would discourage trailing teams from fouling endlessly with the game already decided, and would return the excitement of a game-tying buzzer beating 3pt shot.

3. Limit the number of timeouts in the final 2 minutes to 2 per team, and eliminate back-to-back TOs without the ball entering play.
-This seems pretty straightforward to me. Everyone hates when the offense calls a TO, the defense doesn't like something, and so they call a timeout before the inbound.
-If you don't call your second timeout before 2:00 on the clock, you simply lose it.

4. Introduce a version of the Elam Ending for overtime.
-From the start of overtime, make the target score somewhere from +7 to +10 of the current score, and whoever gets there first wins the game.

I think these implementations would speed up the game while also (re)adding some excitement back into it. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Good ideas here. I'd consider the following items:

1) If we do this (and I like the idea), then I'd equip the officials with headsets. You can use the "secret service style" earpieces. That might even reduce some of the conferences where officials are huddling up to get the right call. If you have one referee who can instantly communicate "hey, I clearly saw a deflection" if the primary official asks, that seems like it would reduce a couple of minutes. (Side note - I don't know if we'll ever get back to a two-hour window for college basketball, but I'd love it if we can get closer to that instead of getting closer to 2 hours 30 minutes like we are now.)

2) Are you looking at pretty much any foul (i.e. those "intentionally unintentional fouls") with the truly intentional fouls retaining the two shots and the ball penalty? If you are, sign me up for this.

4) Absolutely worth an experiment in the NIT or Crown Challenge (or whatever they are calling that Vegas made-for-TV event). I'm thinking +10 to +12 for the score, as +7 could be as little as three possessions. +7 feels more like the sudden-death playoffs in golf events, where 10-12 feels more like the three or four hole playoffs (which I really like as it's more than just one great or bad shot that could win you the tournament).
 
#30      
blife
How about in the last minute, if you are not in the double bonus already, just make it a double 1&1 on an intentional foul, make the first get a second, make the second get a third free throw. Definitely do not want any bad free throw shooters on the floor.
 
#31      
RabidDawgClassic
Why are so many people wishing to change a game that is already great? The only times I’ve ever wished for a game to get over quicker is when the game I really want to watch is on next. And while that is a problem that needs to be addressed, that can be done on the network level, not with the rules committee. It’s kinda sorta resolved as it is with app availability, but still a hassle.
 
#32      
OrangeBlue98
RabidDawgClassic said:
Why are so many people wishing to change a game that is already great? The only times I’ve ever wished for a game to get over quicker is when the game I really want to watch is on next. And while that is a problem that needs to be addressed, that can be done on the network level, not with the rules committee. It’s kinda sorta resolved as it is with app availability, but still a hassle.
Click to expand...
My opinion only, but I do think games drag on far too long in the last couple of minutes. Between the multiple timeouts, multiple fouls, and seemingly endless reviews over every little thing, it sometimes feels like the last two minutes can take a half hour.

I don't think anyone really has a problem with the game from minutes 1-38. It's from 38:01 to 40:00 where it sometimes (and approaching often) gets difficult to watch.
 
#33      
amillini#2
Foul in backcourt with under 1 minute remaining = 2 free throws and possession. You shouldn’t be able to gain a tactical advantage by breaking the rules.
 
#34      
TrentMusgrave
Bbuck21 said:
What if after any foul (especially relavant in crunch time), let the team that was fouled have the ball to inbound as quickly as they want, or if shooting, give them the ball as soon as they are ready at the line and their teammates are set. This would eliminate delays by the defending team to get reorganized. Also, no substitutions at this time. Further, I think anytime a review takes place, the players on the floor have to remain out on the floor, not huddling up like an additional timeout. If the coach wants to shout instructions from the bench, so be it.
Click to expand...
I like this. similar to football, get the ball to the line and hike it.
 
#36      
Point-Illinois
I love all this conversation but I think in an effort to solve “fouls” we are overlooking the main issue.

1. Teams are breaking the (on the floor) rules to gain an advantage and

2. Teams are breaking the rules to fight the real opponent at that point, the constantly decreasing ticks on the clock.

My proposed solutions would be:

A. Triple Bonus. At some point late in the game, once a team has gotten its 15th team foul, it’s 3 automatic FTs. (Maybe under 2 minutes? Or after the under 4 timeout?) This at least gives the leading team a chance to get 3 points, and negate a late 3 pointer barrage comeback.

B. Clock runoff. There are stipulations in football to keep teams from using penalties to preserve clock, put it in basketball. (5 seconds maybe? Maybe 10?)

C. The below is good as well. It may lead to more reviews, but I think it could work. Swiping to steal the ball (and creating contact) is different than just lightly tapping someone on the back or grabbing their waste to stop the clock. The fact that it also addresses fouling while up 3 is icing on the cake.
aaeismacgychel said:
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...

Some variation/combination of these things allows the game to stay fundamentally the same while forcing coaches to be more considerate with their available fouls, when they will foul, and how that affects the clock.
 
#37      
lstewart53x3
While I hate the late-game fouling strategy because as others have pointed out, a team shouldn’t be able to gain an advantage by breaking the rules of the game.

Imagine in football if you jump offsides a certain number of times in a row, the other team has to kick a field goal. So you could have an end of game strategy down 3 where you purposefully jump offsides to force a field goal to go down 6, and you then get the ball back with a chance to win the game.

Teams should be punished for breaking the rules of the game, not rewarded.

That said—I don’t see them ever changing these rules. It extends the game, which increases commercial revenue, and increases excitement by giving the losing team a chance to win in the final minutes.

*Edit: The rule that absolutely needs to be fixed is if you’re down 3 with 5 seconds to play and the other team fouls, you should not be forced to take those free throws, which effectively strips your opportunity to win the game. Like in football, you should be able to decline that penalty.
 
Last edited:
#38      
IlliniFanAndAlum
Eliminate substitutions and timeouts on play stoppage due to fouls in the final two minutes. That preserves the ability to extend the game, but would keep game moving more. It would also force teams to be more strategic with free throw shooters, offense/defense substitutions, etc…
 
#39      
BashCtIllini
I think the only way to speed things up and not fundamentally change the game, would be to A) enforce intentional foul calls B) have a 2-5 sec runoff for fouls in the final minute.

I also agree with a 30 second time limit on reviews. If you can't see something pretty obvious to overturn the call, then play on. We don't need pixel by pixel reviews.
 
Last edited:
#40      
unapalmerclassic
It seems back in the 60s and 70s if a team was behind by 5-10 points under a minute, it was just accepted that the team behind was going to lose.
I dont recall the fouling in the final minutes that we have today. Maybe winning and losing wasnt as important back then.
 
#41      
doowink
unapalmerclassic said:
It seems back in the 60s and 70s if a team was behind by 5-10 points under a minute, it was just accepted that the team behind was going to lose.
I dont recall the fouling in the final minutes that we have today. Maybe winning and losing wasnt as important back then.
Click to expand...
Back in those days the team that was ahead in the final minutes of the game would a lot of times go 4 corners (see Dean Smith), forcing the defense to come out and apply more pressure and even foul to get a chance at getting the ball back. But you are correct, game over
 
#43      
1m4tr
unapalmerclassic said:
It seems back in the 60s and 70s if a team was behind by 5-10 points under a minute, it was just accepted that the team behind was going to lose.
I dont recall the fouling in the final minutes that we have today. Maybe winning and losing wasnt as important back then.
Click to expand...
Like when UNC scored 8 points in 17 seconds in 1974 to tie Duke and force OT? ;-)
 
#44      
RML
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...
But you will get a chance (or multiple chances) to steal the inbounds pass (or passes).
I've been a proponent of that change forever.
 
#45      
RML
Shortening the shot clock in the last two minutes to, say, 10 seconds, might be alternative way to minimize the implementation of that fouling strategy, and increase the excitement of the last two minutes. (I don't advocate this, though.)
 
#46      
mysterio2525
Expand to 6 fouls or no ejection on 5th foul but a free throws and possession like a technical. The refs are too inconsistent to have this much impact on the game. Been saying this for years and we had a perfect example of why during msu
 
#47      
RabidDawgClassic
unapalmerclassic said:
It seems back in the 60s and 70s if a team was behind by 5-10 points under a minute, it was just accepted that the team behind was going to lose.
I dont recall the fouling in the final minutes that we have today. Maybe winning and losing wasnt as important back then.
Click to expand...
It might’ve just been that Illinois didn’t have the offensive firepower to score 5-10 points in a minute back in the 60s and 70s. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I remember a game in the 1980s (85 I want to say) where we were down 10 late to Iowa — and by “late” I mean within the final eight minutes. We came back and won and I remember just being dumbfounded that we could rally from such a huge deficit in that amount of time. Different style of ball back then.
 
#48      
Mapman
How about just calling intentional fouls…intentional fouls. You know, the fouls where they hold or slap from behind without making a play for the ball. It seems like that used to be a more frequent call when I was younger.
 
#49      
Lmg5
Washington literally tried that, to disrupt the Eagles' Brotherly Shove at the goal line, and refs warned them they would use the "palpably unfair act" to award Philly the TD.

Get rid of the one plus one -- the NBA did--and selectively reinstate the old, "3 to make 2"?

Also, why not try 44/45 minute games, if not 48?
 
Last edited:
#50      
grue2
I still like the fouled team gets 1pt and the ball for all fouls. Get rid of the "intentional" call judgement that isn't working. A flagrant foul is 3pts and the ball.

This should make deliberate fouls a losing strategy in pretty much every case. It also eliminates one of the slower, boring, parts of the game -- free throws. To fix the end of game BS, you can add "If there is less than 5s on the game clock, the game clock is reset to 5s and the game ends with the end of the 5s, or with a change of possession, whichever comes first."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back