There was discussion on ESPN's First Take this morning about eliminating the foul limit. The idea is that instead of a player being disqualified after his sixth foul ... it would make each foul after the sixth turn into two free throws and the ball for the opposing team.
I've been on the fence about this. I hate foul trouble. The NBA is star driven and poorly officiated. That means we could have a couple bad calls go against the star and he has to sit on the bench. We don't want this. We want to see the stars. We want to see Ray Allen in Game 1. We want to see Kobe Bryant in Game 2. We didn't get either of those because some tough calls went against them and they had to sit.
The problem I have with instituting a no foul limit is what the game could become.
One. Will players then take the opportunity to hack at will? I don't see that as that big of a problem since the penalty of two shots and the ball is quite severe after that sixth foul.
Two. At the same time, will officials be quick to blow the whistle? Now, they do look the other way because they tend to not want to get too ticky-tacky on the calls. If it didn't keep a player on the bench, would they call more fouls? Would the game just turn into a parade to the foul line?
It's something I've wondered. I want the stars to be able to stay in the game and not have the officials dictate outcomes of games. I just don't want the game to suffer as well.
I've been on the fence about this. I hate foul trouble. The NBA is star driven and poorly officiated. That means we could have a couple bad calls go against the star and he has to sit on the bench. We don't want this. We want to see the stars. We want to see Ray Allen in Game 1. We want to see Kobe Bryant in Game 2. We didn't get either of those because some tough calls went against them and they had to sit.
The problem I have with instituting a no foul limit is what the game could become.
One. Will players then take the opportunity to hack at will? I don't see that as that big of a problem since the penalty of two shots and the ball is quite severe after that sixth foul.
Two. At the same time, will officials be quick to blow the whistle? Now, they do look the other way because they tend to not want to get too ticky-tacky on the calls. If it didn't keep a player on the bench, would they call more fouls? Would the game just turn into a parade to the foul line?
It's something I've wondered. I want the stars to be able to stay in the game and not have the officials dictate outcomes of games. I just don't want the game to suffer as well.
2 comments:
I don't know how I feel about that. Six fouls is a lot, and its usually around four when a coach will sit a player out to keep them safe from trouble. I think by giving the other team two free throws and the ball would change the game completely. Refs are faulty and I just think that gives the other team way too much of an advantage than is necessary. Yes, we want to see the stars, but seeing a star foul out of a game is also a bit intense for a viewer/fan as well.
Screw that, throwing him out of the game is the right thing to do. And even better than that, any flagrant foul should be an automatic ejection as well.
Post a Comment