Abolish this rule please

[Reality]

Dallas ahead 103-100 with 4 seconds left and Hou with ball.  So they simply intentionally foul.  

No why, if my team is ahead and I'm playing defense, should i be REWARDED for intentionally fouling a player thus stopping any three point attempt?  (okay i know i know you can intentionally miss the 2nd FT and get off a 3 attempt like McMeGrady did.)  Not the same at all.  Some gotta hit the rim and hope for some bounce off balance is not even the same as having ball out of bounds and being able to work a play for a 3 attempt.

What skill does it take to walk/run up an intentionally foul the opposition?

Intentional foul in last minute should be FTAs and ball possession.
Period.

Also, the refs are so used to this that with 8 seconds left when Houston did NOT intentionally foul, instead surrounding the Dallas player and hoping for a steal, the ref blew the whistle just because he assumed Hou was gonna intentionally foul!

[jn]

No way.

It makes sense because your being rewarded for not fouling EARLIER in the period.  

More importantly, changing the rule would require refs to make judgment calls on whether a foul was intentional or not.  Essentially the team that's leading couldn't play defense because of the fear that a foul would be called intentional.  

[WayOutWest]

In international rules the team that is fouled gets to choose between freethrows or ball out of bounds for a new possession.  I like that rule.

[jn]

To clarify, the first part of what I mentioned applies if the team with the lead is not in the penalty and can used the intentional foul to take time off the clock.  The second part is still more imporant.  Forcing the refs to make judgment calls on whether something is intentional a very bad idea.  Teams can avoid this problem by, oh I don't know, not falling behind?  Also if the trailing team is smart they have saved Timeout to get the ball past half court.  In that case the defending team may not risk the foul as it is too likely they will foul someone in the act of shooting a three.  

[ziggy]

Why penalize a team just because they are ahead?  If they want to use a foul to stop a 3 or 4 point attempt so what?  They shouldn't be penalized because they are ahead in the game.

If we do that why not say, "in the last 30 seconds if you are behind your FT's are now worth 2 points, so as to make it easier to catch up".  Or "any 3's in the ast 30 seconds made by a team behind by 6 or more points are worth 4 points, and teams behind by 10 or more get 5 points".

Same difference

[Derek Bodner]

agree with jn.

[rickortreat]

Absurd.

You should have an advantage in being ahead.  You have the lead and it's your job to keep it any way you can, so the option to foul is simply another choice.

It's the way the game has allways been played, and you want to change it because we now have a 3-point shot?  If they're fouled in the act of shooting above the three-point line, they get 3 free throws.

That's about as fair as you can get.  

[westkoast]

Funny this wasnt a problem when teams were ahead and doing hack-a-Shaq.  Wasnt it all good then???

The team with less points WANTS the clock to stop.  I am sure some teams would like them to intentionally foul.  You get two free, open looks at the rim and the clock stops.

If we take out this rule then lets take out the rule of calling alot of timeouts at the end of the game too.  Im sick of play being stopped when theres only a few ticks left.

[Reality]

Absurd.

You should have an advantage in being ahead.  You have the lead and it's your job to keep it any way you can, so the option to foul is simply another choice.

It's the way the game has allways been played, and you want to change it because we now have a 3-point shot?  If they're fouled in the act of shooting above the three-point line, they get 3 free throws.

That's about as fair as you can get.

also jn wrote:
<More importantly, changing the rule would require refs to make judgment calls on whether a foul was intentional or not. >

Then the refs also should not be allowed to judge what is a shot attempt or not.  If I'm 93 feet from the hoop and i toss it towoards the basket as you intent me, it's a shot "attempt".

This happened in an NBA game.  Okay so it wasn't 93 feet.  But it was 35 feet.  Lakers-Pistons 1989.  Magic intentionally fouled Isiah Thomas.  Thomas just flung it up at the hoop with no intention of it going in.  It went in.  Thus the discussion was that no way could you have NOT given Thomas a shooting FTA (or had he missed a pair of FTAs) as obviously he was *attempting* to shoot.  How could you say he wasn't?  The ball went in.

So likewise who can say my 93 foot attempt would not go in.  93 footers have been made.  Plus since the NBA allows continuation shots, I can fling it towards the hoop a step or two after you have intented me.

So indeed the rule states a 3 pt shot "attempt" gets 3 FTs.  Fine.  You intent my player I'm telling him to make any attempt whatsoever to move the ball in the direction of the hoop.  Thus he be awarded  3 foul shots.  Assuming his shot doesn't go in. B), then its a 3+1.

W.O.W. wrote:
<In international rules the team that is fouled gets to choose between freethrows or ball out of bounds for a new possession. I like that rule.>  
Definitely a huge improvement over the present.  But then would teams be given that option with the 1st foul of the 1/2?

I do see the point about the team that is ahead and has foul(s) to give earned that right by not using up their fouls earlier in the 1/2.  Since they have fouls to give they should be able to use them whenever they want.  If its while up 3 pts with 8 seconds left, so be it.

[WayOutWest]

Definitely a huge improvement over the present.  But then would teams be given that option with the 1st foul of the 1/2?
 

The rule only applies to the last two minutes of each quarter, just like the NBA changes the rules in the last two minutes of each qaurter.

[Guest_Randy]

Actually, I WOULD like to see a variation of this rule that WOULD help a lot of the junk we see late in the game (i.e. hack-a-Shaq, or hack-a-TD, or intentionally foul, etc.).  If they are beyond the 3 point line (anywhere on the court), then they automatically get 3 foul attempts.  It REALLY would help get rid of the desperation junk that takes place late in the game and it wouldn't really affect teams that are in the lead (although it might discourage a team like Dallas intentionally fouling the other night -- which I don't think is a bad thing either).  When you stop and think about it -- they really SHOULD get 3 foul shots (if it's an automatic shooting foul) because they are behind the 3 point line.