Note: The first draft of this article was written in early '99. In July (or so), I sent it to NBA.COM, <sarcasm>figuring they'd have time to enact my proposed changes for the upcoming season</sarcasm>. On October 15th, about three months after I sent it, I received an email form-letter response "thank you for your interest in the NBA blah blah blah" - it takes 'em 3 MONTHS to send me a form letter - by email? Sheesh.
-----------------
It’s the rite of spring for a basketball fan. The start of the NBA playoffs - followed shortly afterward by the sound of whining about the officiating. David Stern wants to see superstars in the finals. The officials favor the marquee players. Phoenix will never be allowed to beat Miami. On and on.
While there may be a germ of truth in all of the accusations, most agree that officials have too much influence on the game. The biggest reason the officials have so much influence is that the penalties for fouls in the game are stupidly designed.
To see this, tune in at the end of many games, and watch the intentional fouls (though they are seldom called that way). Hear the announcers say, “they’re going to have to foul here, to stop the clock.”
Read that last sentence again slowly, and then ask yourself: Why would the rules of the game be written so that players have an incentive to foul? Why should it benefit the defense to commit a foul? Good questions.
Usually a foul will be called, the fouled player gets one or two free-throw shots (the rules differ slightly in the different leagues, at different times in the game, whether it was a shooting foul, whether the shot went in, etc.), and then the other team gets the ball back.
In other words, the defense is able to get the ball from the offense by breaking the rules of the game. Is it any wonder fouls are often committed intentionally?
This is why the last few minutes of many games are filled with foul calls, providing ample ammunition for fans of the losing team to complain about the officiating.
This is why teams foul on breakaways. Instead of exciting finishes, we get hugs at halfcourt. Wheee.
This is why a drive to the hoop often ends in a hard foul, to ‘send a message’ and ‘make him earn it from the line’.
This is why we have fun-to-watch strategies like Hack-a-Shaq.
This is why players are sometimes injured by fouls.
In fact, fouling can be so beneficial to the fouling team that there is a limit on the number of fouls a player may commit, and if they exceed that limit they foul out of the game and may not return. The existence of a limit is a tacit admission the rules are poor; in the NFL, there is no limit on the number of times a cornerback may commit pass interference; they are welcome to do it all game long if they like. They don’t, because their team would lose, because in the NFL, the punishment for fouls is designed to minimize their occurrence. What an idea!
---------------------------------------------------------
To minimize the frequency of fouls in basketball, here are the attributes we need:
1) A non-shooting foul by the defense should not end the possession for the offense.
2) It should never be in the best interest of a team to commit a foul.
---------------------------------------------------------
This leads directly to the following implementation:
* Shooting foul: 1 FT, shot counts (whether or not it goes in).
* Non-shooting foul: 1FT, reset shot clock, fouled team gets side-out-of-bounds.
* Offensive foul: 1FT for the fouled team, end of possession.
* No limits on fouls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Poof! The incentive to foul is gone, the effects of the official are minimized, intentional fouls vanish. The game becomes more enjoyable to watch and play.
There would be significant upside to penalizing fouls like this, and no downside. Unless the games are, in fact, rigged…
We also need a ‘challenge flag’: Twice per half, a coach may challenge a call, and the refs review it in slo-mo. They can rule on anything; fouls, possession, in or out of bounds, 2 pts/3 pts, last touch, etc. If they rule in favor of the team challenging the ruling, the ‘challenge flag’ is returned.